On 02/15/2012 04:05 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 09:44 -0800, Andy Grover wrote: >> On 01/20/2012 08:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:39:17PM -0800, Andy Grover wrote: >>>> This saves all fabrics from calling core_tmr_alloc_req() and >>>> having to check the result. The downside is se_cmd gets bigger for all >>>> requests, but hopefully later patches will reduce it. >>> >>> Without patches to void the overhead it's not acceptable. Fortunately >>> it should be doable fairly simply by using an union for command vs >>> TMR fields. >> >> This was my thought too. We should be able to move cmd variables into a >> union w/tmr struct very soon, with a low risk of introducing bugs. >> > > Hi Andy, > > Ping on this..? I've been merging patches from lio-core into > target-pending/for-next the past week, and i've stopped ahead of this > patch to inline se_tmr_req into se_cmd due of the extra overhead in > question here.. > > I'd really like to get this resolved in v3.4 for-next, so would you mind > taking care of the lio-core conversion to union for command vs > TMR fields so this can be squashed into for-next..? Hi Nick, Haven't had a chance to make further progress. You can drop it and I'll resubmit it later with the supplementary work. Regards -- Andy -- 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
