On Thu, Dec 21 2006, 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 think it sounds promising! dm probably still needs its own mempool for
request allocation, but that should be doable.
> 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.
Not sure I remember the details of that one, so the mail/thread might be
useful.
--
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]
