On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: > > >> Jens Axboe wrote: > > >>> On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: > > >>>> Jens Axboe wrote: > > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote: > > >>>>>> End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's > > >>>>>> fully inlined each time. Factor out bio_check_eod(). > > >>>>> Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them in the upstream > > >>>>> branch. Will do so and add your signed-off to both of them. > > >>>>> > > >>>> Would they be different from the one I just posted? No big deal either > > >>>> way. I'm just basing the zero-length barrier on top of these patches. > > >>>> Oh well, the changes are trivial anyway. > > >>> This one ended up being the same, but in the first one you missed some > > >>> of the cleanups. I ended up splitting the patch some more though, see > > >>> the series: > > >>> > > >>> http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=shortlog;h=barrier > > >> Alright, will base on 662d5c5e6afb79d05db5563205b809c0de530286. Thanks. > > > > > > 1781c6a39fb6e31836557618c4505f5f7bc61605, no? Unless you want to rewrite > > > it completely :-) > > > > I think I'll start from 662d5c5e and steal most parts from 1781c6a3. I > > like stealing, you know. :-) I think 1781c6a3 also can use splitting - > > zero length barrier implementation and issue_flush conversion. > > Yes that's true, I could split that in two as well. Will do so! Done, result in the same location. -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
