On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:12 AM, hch@xxxxxx <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 06:35:55PM +0000, Williams, Dan J wrote: >> Jens, I'm wondering if you want to take this series(.) as patches or >> prepare a git branch to pull? > > Honestly I don't think it should go anyway. It makes a big mess of > a structure without providing a real user for it. Given how we are > using the bio_vec for in-kernel page based I/O these days it seems > like a very dangerous idea. There's nothing dangerous about the __pfn_t conversion of the block layer in the !CONFIG_DEV_PFN case a __pfn_t based bio_vec is bit-for-bit identical to a struct page based bio_vec. However, you're right, I can't make the same claim about a scatterlist before and after the change. Hmm, we're missing a pfn-only block I/O user and we're missing the second half of the implementation that provides __pfn_t_to_page() for persistent memory. I'm looking to have a solution __pfn_t_to_page() shortly, maybe that will allow the scatterlist changes to be skipped... we'll see. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
