On Mon, Jun 29 2009, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, June 29, 2009 8:18 pm, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27 2009, Neil Brown wrote: > >> > There's no such thing as first or second class block devices. The fact > >> > that drivers using ->make_request_fn directly do not utilize the full > >> > scope of the queue isn't a very interesting fact, imho. > >> > >> Your phrase "drivers using ->make_request_fn directly" seems to > >> suggest you are looking at things very differently to me. > >> > >> From my perspective, all drivers use ->make_request_fn equally. > >> Some set it to "__make_request", some to "md_make_request", others to > >> "dm_request" or "loop_make_request" etc. > > > > Neil, will you please stop these silly games. Stop trying to invent > > differences based on interpretations of what you read into my replies. > > > We do seem to be having trouble communicating don't we :-( > Be assured that it is not my intention to play games, silly or otherwise. > > Maybe I should just try sending you patches. Maybe that will > make my meaning clearer. > > For the moment, I'm much more interested in the other question, > that of whether I can avoid having a 'queue' directory introduced into > md/dm/etc device directories in sysfs. We already talked about this, several times. My answer is that it seems pointless to begin with internally, and externally it just makes the API worse since tools then have to know which device type they are talking to. So I still see absolutely zero point in making such a change, quite the opposite. -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
