Vivek Goyal said: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:21:45PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:30:25 -0500 >> vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> > >> > o Core IO controller implementation >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> >> 2 comments after a quick look. >> >> - I don't recommend generic work queue. More stacked dependency between >> "work" >> is not good. (I think disk-driver uses "work" for their jobs.) > > Sorry, I did not get this. Are you recommending that don't create a new > work queue, instead use existing work queue (say kblockd) to submit the > bios > here? > Ah, no, recomending new-original its own workqueue. I'm sorry that it seems I missed something at reading your patch. (other person may have other opinion, here;) > I will look into it. I was little worried about a kblockd being overworked > in case of too many logical devices enabling IO controller. > Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
