On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:55:00 +0200 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > It is an hack if used by an outside user, because it assumes knowledge > of block-internals. It is much less of an hack if done by block-internals > which knows for sure that this has no side effects. > > But I agree that this is not clean. The clean solution is to add an extra > parameter to blk_end_request() and change all callers. I don't agree. > Or even cleaner is to add a new request->residual member and leave > request->data_len be in peace. Then change the few users that care > about residual, and one caller that sets it. I'll prepare a patch. Yeah, it's clean but I'm not sure Jens would accept such patch since fattening request struct leads to a notable performance regression. -- 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
