On Thu, Dec 21 2006, Mike Christie wrote:
> Mike Christie wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 21 2006, Mike Christie wrote:
> >>> Or the block layer code could set up the clone too. elv_next_request
> >>> could prep a clone based on the orignal request for the driver then dm
> >>> would not have to worry about that part.
> >> It really can't, since it doesn't know how to allocate the clone
> >> request. I'd rather export this functionality as helpers.
> >>
> >
> > What do you think about dm's plan to break up make_request into a
> > mapping function and in to the part the builds the bio into a request.
> > This would fit well with them being helpers and being able to allocate
> > the request from the correct context.
> >
> > I see patches for that did not get posted, but I thought Joe and
> > Alasdair used to talk about that a lot and in the dm code I think there
> > is sill comments about doing it. Maybe the dm comments mentioned the
> > merge_fn, but I guess the merge_fn did not fit what they wanted to do or
> > something. I think Alasdair talked about this at one of his talks at OLS
> > or it was in a proposal for the kernel summit. I can dig up the mail if
> > you want.
> >
>
> Ignore that. The problem would be that we may not want to decide which
> path to use at map time.
Latter part, or both paragraphs? Dipping into ->make_request_fn() for
some parts do seem to make sense to me. It'll be cheaper than at
potential soft irq time (from elv_next_request()).
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
