On 03/26/2009 09:42 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > A few issues. > > Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Perhaps you could reorder the code below a bit? >>> >>> My proposal is: >>> * blk_rq_map_kern_prealloc => is simplified to be >>> int blk_rq_map_bio(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, >>> struct bio *bio); > > The thing is that the prealloc variant should be allowed to be called > from IRQ context and blk_queue_bounce() shouldn't be called. > Hmmm... well, the caller is supposed to know what it's doing and maybe > we can just add a comment that it shouldn't be called with buffers > which might get bounced from IRQ context. > Hmm that is a problem. I would suggest a flag or a check. My bios come from VFS they need bouncing. Can you think of a solution? We could just call blk_queue_bounce(). IRQ callers need to make sure their buffers don't need bouncing anyway, so there is no such bug right? If a programmer gets it wrong he will get a BUG check that tells him that. >>> * The extra checks currently inside blk_rq_map_kern_prealloc are moved >>> to bio_map_kern_prealloc() >>> >>> * Users call bio_map_kern_prealloc() directly and then use blk_rq_map_bio() >>> in a two stage process. > > This breaks consistency with blk_rq_map_*() family of functions. Do > you have a plan to make them all consistent? I think we really need > to maintain API consistency. > I agree, that is why I called it blk_make_request originally. But this is not good for you since your request is pre-allocated as well as the bio. It needs a different name, blk_rq_set_bio(), I don't know do you have any ideas? > Thanks. > Thanks 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
