[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081009065141.GV19428@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:51:43 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] ide: locking improvements
On Wed, Oct 08 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> Locking improvements in preparation for replacing the global ide_lock
> spinlock by per-hwgroup spinlocks [1].
>
> [1] patch (which is partially based on 2005 patch from Scalex86) for this
> is also ready but it needs some more audit and testing
>
> diffstat:
> drivers/ide/ide-cd.c | 38 ++++++-------
> drivers/ide/ide-io.c | 129 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> drivers/ide/ide-ioctls.c | 3 -
> drivers/ide/ide-lib.c | 7 --
> drivers/ide/ide-proc.c | 25 +--------
> drivers/ide/ide.c | 7 --
> 6 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-)
Sorry, but I just have to ask 'why'? IDE is seeing a whole lot of churn
for something that should essentially be a stable code base in
maintenance mode, and now scalability improvements?
Just doesn't make ANY sense to me, sorry. We may end up with a cleaner
code base, but likely also a buggier one. It's not like hardware
coverage testing is all that great, considering some of the ancient
stuff it supports :-)
--
Jens Axboe
--
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