On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:15:07 +0200 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > James Smart wrote: > > Trying to kick-start this again... > > I've updated the prior RFC with the comments from Seokmann, > > SvenFujita, and Boaz. I would still like review on the > > blk_xxx completion calls in the std and error paths. > > > > It currently expects that blk_end_request() has been updated > > by Fujita's patch to incorporate blk_end_bidi_request() > > functionality : > > http://marc.info/?l-linux-scsi&m=122785157116659&w=2 > > > > I did not accept this patch and it did not go in right? I think that Jens has not merged mine or yours. I don't care about either but I still think that it's better to kill blk_end_bidi_request(). It's really confusing API. > I still don't like it, it's a performance regression. Hmm, I've not seen the figures. Please show the figures if you insist a performance regression. It's about a bidi request. We already have tons of loops, memory allocations, etc in the path. Do you think that adding one more loop leads to a notable performance regression? Well, if you say that it's hacky then I would agree. But your patch using ~0 is hacky too. -- 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
