On 5/3/18 1:24 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzanares@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private field
>>>> into a union of the private and ki_ioprio field. It seems like the users of
>>>> the private field all use it at a point where we can yank the priority from
>>>> the kiocb before the private field is used. Comments and suggestions welcome.
>>>
>>> Or we could just make ki_hint a u8 or u16 ... seems unlikely we'll need
>>> 32 bits of ki_hint. (currently defined values are 1-5)
>>
>> I like the approach of using a u16 for the ki_hint. I'll update and
>> resubmit.
>
> It's intended to be a mask. If you do shrink it for now, then we need some
> guard code to ensure it can always carry what it needs to.
>
Got it, I'll add the guard to rw_hint_valid along with a comment about
being limited by the size of ki_hint in case we get to a situation where
16 bits is not enough.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����* jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
