[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090401221102O.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:10:53 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: tj@...nel.org
Cc: fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, axboe@...nel.dk,
bharrosh@...asas.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...el.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] blk-map: reimplement blk_rq_map_user() using
blk_rq_map_user_iov()
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:03:39 +0900
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > No, we are not talking about blk_rq_append_bio().
> >
> > We are talking about the multiple bio handling in blk_rq_map_user,
> > which is the feature that Mike added long time ago. The feature is
> > surely necessary for some users. So you can't remote it.
>
> How would someone use that without blk_rq_append_bio()? The only
Hmm, I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Why do we need to live without blk_rq_append_bio()?
You want to remove blk_rq_append_bio()? Please make your goal clear.
> reason blk_rq_map_user() had multiple bio chaining was to work around
> BIO_MAX_SIZE. blk_rq_map_user_iov() doesn't support multiple bio
> chaining, so sans blk_rq_append_bio() or playing with rq/bio internals
> directly, there's no way to use or even know about multiple bios.
Yes, only non iovec interface of SG_IO supports large data
transfer. Users have been lived with that.
--
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