On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:25:36PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > But this approach becomes unwieldy and eventually breaks down with > stacked devices and devices with dynamic limits, and it adds a lot of > complexity. If the block layer could split bios as needed, we could Complexity - yes - but if people didn't observe a genuine benefit, why did they go to the trouble of writing this and getting it included? > eliminate a lot of complexity elsewhere - particularly in stacked > drivers. > Code that creates bios can then create whatever size bios are > convenient, and more importantly stacked drivers don't have to deal with > both their own bio size limitations and the limitations of the > (potentially multiple) devices underneath them. A theoretical argument. Perhaps it's the right assessment of this issue. Perhaps it's not. Or perhaps it depends on the use-case. I made a theoretical argument from a different point of view in my last email. I think a body of *empirical* evidence should provide the justification for this particular change, and until such evidence is forthcoming we should keep the status quo. Alasdair -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
