On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 01 March 2011 20:15:30 Jens Axboe wrote: >> Thanks for the recap. One way to handle this would be to have a dm >> target that ensures that requests are never built up to violate any of >> the above items. Doing splitting is a little silly, when you can prevent >> it from happening in the first place. > > Ok, that sounds good. I didn't know that it's possible to prevent > bios from getting created that violate this. > Wouldn't someone still be able to perform a generic_make_request that would violate the conditions (i.e. cross alignment boundary while performing unaligned write)? You could prevent the merges that would result in violating the conditions, sure, but you would need to handle single unaligned accesses correctly too... Sorry, I'm just groping my way around the block layer...a lot I'm still trying to draw a mental picture for. P.S. I've submitted for review the first 3 patches. Tear into them :). A -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
