On Mon, Mar 17 2008, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Look further down in the email, queue_bounce_to_mask() or whatever you > > would want to call it. As also written there, the PRINCIPLE is the same. > > And that is that exporting a to_allocator_mask() helper is a lot saner > > than exporting an allocator api tied to the queue. > > > > Can we get over this, please? > > Ok it would have helped if you had explained why it is saner, but I > bow to your superior experience on block layer issues. Do I detect just a touch of sarcasm there? Andi, I have in (approx) 4 emails explained why I think it is saner. It's even right there, above your own text here. I'm not sure how much more I can say... > The only open issue is right now if it isn't better to go back > for automatic bouncing for SCSI scan and the other users. Do you > have an opinion on that too? If you have one can you please convince > James of it too. Sure, I also wrote that in several emails - I'm fine with bouncing for the scanning, it's not a big deal imho. I can see why James may not like it so much since we can fairly easily avoid the bounce, but as I wrote in the previous email, I think that doing a bit of bounce there may not be such a bad idea after all. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
