On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:40:11 +0200 > > Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:28AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > Looks promising but probably I'll not be able to review it properly > > > > this week (I'm busy with my real job) and the next week (I'll be busy > > > > with pushing overdue IDE updates). OTOH I'm hoping that Borislav > > > > would be able to take a look in the meantime. > > > > > > Yep, they're quite straight-forward and look fine except some nitpicking i sent > > > in separate mails. > > > > Thanks for reviewing, > > > > Yeah, these patches are pretty straightforward mainly because they are > > against the paths where we can use __GFP_WAIT. > > > > > > > FWIW, this is what we wanted to do initially but Jens didn't > > > agree to that at the time. I guess, it's because i probably didn't express > > > myself clearly enough then. See http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/3/1/1037974 > > > for the whole discussion. > > > > I think that IDE uses request struct from interrupt context at some > > places. In such places, I don't think that converting requests on the > > stack and a pre-allocated fixed number of requests to > > kmalloc/blk_get_request with GFP_ATOMIC is an good idea. It's better > > to remove such code (allocating requests from interrupt context). Thanks for clarifying that, i've overlooked that case. -- Regards/Gruß, Boris -- 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
