[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1wsgrgl0o.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:54:31 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, neilb@...e.de,
agk@...rceware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Block integrity patches for 2.6.28
>>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> writes:
Jens> As far as I can tell, most of that commit is still fine. You
Jens> want bdev_get_integrity() in blkdev.h, the 3 other moves and the
Jens> unused bdev_get_tag_size() do not look like they are being used
Jens> by this patch set.
bdev_get_integrity() and bdev_get_tag_size() are being used by
stacking drivers and filesystems to prepare I/O. It's correct that
none of the in-tree stuff currently uses bdev_get_tag_size(). That's
coming with the btrfs support. If you want to pull that out for now
and have me put that back later in that's ok. Just adds another
two-stage merge dependency for a later cycle.
bdev_integrity_enabled() and blk_integrity_tuple_size() are only being
used from within bio-integrity.c and can move there. I originally put
them in blkdev.h because they are block device functions and not bio
ditto.
Want me to submit a new patch shuffling bdev_get_integrity() back
where it came from?
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists