Hi Mike, On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:57 PM Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Definitely not very intuitive.. but yes I think it is a reasonable > tradeoff between your goals and further code complexity to be able to > achieve the "ideal". Thanks for the feedback. I do have a patch for the "optimal" allocation lying around as well, if you'd like to take a look. It's not as bad as I thought, but it does require another list_head in dm_bufio_client; other than that it's just O(N), so not so bad. > Think the documented example can be made clearer by documenting that > dm_bufio_cache_size_per_client = 49. And that _that_ is the reason why > the client that didn't set a maximum is bounded to 49. Ack, will send a v2 to clarify. > > Overall I think this patch looks reasonable, but I'd like Mikulas to > review this closer before I pick it up. Thanks; let me know if you want to see the alternative as an RFC, and I'll clean it up and send it out. Thanks, Martijn > > Thanks, > Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
