linux-kernel - Re: request->ioprio

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200808141216.33688.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:16:33 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao 
	<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	吉川 拓哉 
	<yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>, dpshah@...gle.com
Subject: Re: request->ioprio

On Wednesday 13 August 2008 17:06:03 Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> Besides, I guess that accessing the io context information (such as
> ioprio) of a request through elevator-specific private structures is not
> something we want virtio_blk (or future users) to do.

The only semantic I assumed was "higher is better".  The server (ie. host) can 
really only use the information to schedule between I/Os for that particular 
guest anyway.

But it sounds like I should be passing "0" in there unconditionally until the 
kernel semantics are sorted out and I can do something more intelligent?  I 
haven't checked, but I assume that's actually what's happening at the moment 
(the field is zero)?

Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/