FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:54:38 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:04:39 +0300
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I
just don't think bvec should be used outside of block/fs interface.
As I wrote before, non-FS users have no reason to worry about bio.
All it should think about is the requst it needs to issue and the
memory area it's gonna use as in/out buffers. bio just doesn't have a
place there.
I don't understand what happens to all the people that start to work on the block
layer, they start getting defensive about bio being private to the request
level. But the Genie is out of the bag already (I know cats and bottles).
bio is already heavily used above the block layer from directly inside filesystems
to all kind of raid engines, DM MD managers, multi paths, integrity information ...
Because bio is exactly that Ideal page carrier you are talking about.
Wrong. multi path doesn't use bio. md accesses to the bio internal
(it's not nice) and has the own way to carry pages. dm has the own
mechanism on the top of bio. And bio doesn't work nicely for file
systems such as btrfs, which handle multiple devices.
Please stop your wrong argument 'bio is the ideal page carrier'.
What is the multi-device problem with bio?
Well, if it works nicely, I guess that we don't have something like
drivers/dm/{dm-bio-record.h, dm-bio-list.h}, btrfs_multi_bio struct,
or md's own page carrier?
It was an honest question. I am seeking information, not denying your
argument.
What, specifically, is this multi-device problem with bio, please?
Jeff
--
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
