On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:38:04PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > <yawn>, I only care about the performance against upstream code, so that > would mean scsi_debug here. Typically the onus of demonstrating a > performance improvement is on the patch submitter (eg: not the > reviewer). Do you really care? If the patchset introduced a lot of code or ugliness I might agreee to your above statement, but it actually makes the code more obvious, simpler and also fixes some small issues so I don't think we'll need an exact performance improvement to justify it. > But it would be at least useful to know the actual benefit with results > as an incremental step, short of avoiding this code entirely for > scsi-mq. I don't think you can avoid the device put/get entirely for that case. I've been looking over the mq code a bit more lately, and in a few places it just seems to try to cut a few too many corners. To get it out of the prototype status we'll need to make sure all edge cases are handled correctly. -- 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
