On Fri, Apr 25 2008 at 13:03 +0300, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:31:41 +0200 > Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 25 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:22:04 +0200 >>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 25 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:49:30 +0200 >>>>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 24 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:31:21 +0900 >>>>>>> FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:50:42 +0300 >>>>>>>> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The support for large commands was dropped from the for-2.6.26 branch >>>>>>>>> and will probably not get accepted into next kernel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have tried to take all comments from Jens and Bart. and incorporate >>>>>>>>> it into a new patchset. This is basically Tomo's patchset but with >>>>>>>>> proposed changes. >>>>>>>> Have you seen the patchset to remove request on the stack? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-ide&m=120882410712466&w=2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are based on current linux-block/master. They will probably conflict with >>>>>>>>> latest patch sent by Tomo for the blk_get_request(). Once those patches >>>>>>>>> get accepted at some git tree, (Where will that be?), I will rebase these >>>>>>>>> on top of them. Please CC me of any progress. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [PATCH 1/5] block: no need to initialize rq->cmd >>>>>>>>> This is 2 of Tomo's patches squashed together as they are >>>>>>>>> small and do the same. Tomo is this OK? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [PATCH 2/5] block: replace sizeof(rq->cmd) with BLK_MAX_CDB >>>>>>>>> Tomos patch rebased to here >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [PATCH 3/5] block: Export rq_init, rename to blk_init_rq >>>>>>>>> [PATCH 4/5] block: Use new blk_init_rq >>>>>>>>> These patches are basically what Jens and Bart has suggested, that with >>>>>>>>> a small code change to blk-core.c we can memset at rq_init() and only set >>>>>>>>> none zero members. We can also export that initializer and use it all over >>>>>>>>> the ide tree where ever requests don't come from a request queue. (OK also >>>>>>>>> at scsi_error.c) >>>>>>>> +void blk_init_rq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, int cmd_flags) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmm, would it be better to modify the block layer to let rq_init just >>>>>>>> memset() the request structure? >>>>>>> I think, if we move rq_init to blk_alloc_request from get_request, >>>>>>> rq_init can just memset() the structure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then we can export rq_init and rq_init works for everyone. >>>>>> Wont work, see the io scheduler set_request() functions. >>>>> Sorry, can you be more specific? >>>>> >>>>> Only cfq uses set_request for now. cfq_set_request uses rq->cmd_flags >>>>> and stores information at rq->elevator_private and >>>>> rq->elevator_private2. >>>>> >>>>> The patch does memset() the request structure and sets up >>>>> rq->cmd_flags, and then elv_set_request. Doesn't it work? >>>> Sorry, with the moved rq_init() it should work, didn't look closely >>>> enough. >>> No problem. >>> >>> So are you ok with the patch? If so, I'll re-send it with a proper >>> description and the signed-off. >> Please do - I actually already merged it, but do resend with a full >> description and signed-off etc. > > I just stole your description and added my signed-off. > > Will you merge the large command support for 2.6.26? Or only this > clean-up patch? > > = > From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [PATCH] block: make rq_init() do a full memset() > > This requires moving rq_init() from get_request() to blk_alloc_request(). > The upside is that we can now require an rq_init() from any path that > wishes to hand the request to the block layer. > > rq_init() will be exported for the code that uses struct request > without blk_get_request. > > This is a preparation for large command support, which needs to > initialize struct request in a proper way (that is, just doing a > memset() will not work). > > Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- <snip> Sorry for the late response. Those hebrew holidays on they way of Linux coding ;-). I don't mind as long as these things get accepted. But how is that any different then the patch I sent? [PATCH 3/5] block: Export rq_init, rename to blk_init_rq It does exactly 100% the same move of rq_init to blk_alloc_request and the memset and all, Have you looked at the patches at all? I feel like a mute person ;-( If you are going to export the rq_init function then I think the name is very wrong. And you have not exported it? Boaz -- 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
