[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081027094111.GU22217@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:41:11 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: jeremy@...p.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: replace BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY with BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE
On Mon, Oct 27 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:18:44 +1100
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
> > FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > I'm not familiar with what Xen does but why can't Xen just override
> > > BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE?
> > >
> > > Why does Xen need to hook BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE to the iommu_bio_merge
> > > parameter (as this patch does)? BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE and the
> > > iommu_bio_merge parameter are not related at all.
> > >
> >
> > No, it doesn't. It was convenient to reuse that mechanism, but I can
> > easily re-add something else (which would be more or less identical).
>
> I still don't see how Xen needs something like the virtual merge
> (sounds that overriding BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE perfectly works for Xen)
> or why Xen needs a new boot parameter for it. The virtual merge just
> defines how IOMMUs should work.
Pretty much baffles me as well, xen should just need to do
#define BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(vec1, vec2) 0
and that should be it.
--
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