On Tue, May 01 2007, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Please consider the attached proposal. It is a complete block-level bidi > implementation that is, I hope, a middle ground which will keep everyone > happy (including Christoph). It is both quite small and not invasive, > yet has a full bidi API that is easy to use and maintain. This isn't much of an improvement imo, if any at all. Why didn't you do the ->next_rq approach I suggested? Your patch still makes struct request considerably fatter (30% here, from 280 to 368 bytes on x86-64 from a quick look) for something that will have relatively few uses. And it still has its paws all over the block layer code. Please just implement the 2nd data phase as a linked request off the first one. I think that approach is both much cleaner from a design perspective, and also much leaner and has zero (well almost, it costs a pointer) impact on the regular read-write paths. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
