On Tue, Mar 24 2009, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:14:38 +0100 > Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 24 2009, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:41:32 +0200 > > > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > > > > Hi Tomo Jens > > > > > > > > > > Tomo you never ack-by on this patch. I absolutely needs this for the > > > > > user-mode API of osd-initiator. Which is needed with up-coming exofs > > > > > utilities. > > > > > > > > > > What do you want to do? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jens. > > > > > > > > I absolutely need this patch for 2.6.30 merge window. It is totally > > > > un-dangerous since defaults are left unchanged. > > > > > > The question is we really need this feature or not. Though I guess > > > that we need to address this starvation issue. > > > > I'd argue that tail insertion should be the most used way to queue > > commands, head insertion should only be for the cases where you want > > immediate access (like error handling). > > As I wrote, I think that we need to address this starvation issue. > > But nobody has complained about this (with sg and bsg) for years > because we have not seen applications sending scsi commands that are > many enough to make a queue full. So it's worth knowing what unknown > applications do for what, I think. Not sure it exists, just saying that if I were to write an app that uses bsg for doing "normal" IO, I would certainly use tail insertion. -- 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
