* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Totally untested, comments welcome... > > > > Yeah, I think that updating bi_seg_front_size and > > bi_seg_back_size at one place, __blk_recalc_rq_segments, is > > better. I thought about the same way. But we are already in > > -rc7 and this must go into mainline now. So I chose a > > less-intrusive way (similar to what we have done in the > > past). > > > > As you know, the merging code is really complicated and we > > could overlook stuff easily. ;) It might be better to > > simplify the merging code a bit. > > If someone (Ingo?) is willing to test the last variant, I'd > much rather add that. It does simplify it (imho), and it kills > 23 lines while only adding 9. But a quick response would be > nice, then I can ask Linus to pull it later today. sure, can give it a whirl. Note that your patch in this thread does no apply cleanly. Could you please send a pull request of your latest fixes that i could pull into tip:out-of-tree for testing purposes? Ingo -- 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
