On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 22:30 -0800, Andy Grover wrote: > 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. > Hi Andy, Ok, I'll go ahead and re-add allocation of se_tmr_req into lio-core, and drop this patch from my for-next queue for now. --nab -- 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
