linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET pata-2.6] ide: rq->buffer, data, special and misc cleanups

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: <49E2F84C.6080804@garzik.org>
Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:31:08 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
CC:	bharrosh@...asas.com, tj@...nel.org, petkovbb@...il.com,
	bzolnier@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET pata-2.6] ide: rq->buffer, data, special and misc	cleanups

FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:54:38 -0400
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> 
>> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:04:39 +0300
>>> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>> just don't think bvec should be used outside of block/fs interface.
>>>>> As I wrote before, non-FS users have no reason to worry about bio.
>>>>> All it should think about is the requst it needs to issue and the
>>>>> memory area it's gonna use as in/out buffers.  bio just doesn't have a
>>>>> place there.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't understand what happens to all the people that start to work on the block
>>>> layer, they start getting defensive about bio being private to the request
>>>> level. But the Genie is out of the bag already (I know cats and bottles).
>>>> bio is already heavily used above the block layer from directly inside filesystems
>>>> to all kind of raid engines, DM MD managers, multi paths, integrity information ...
>>>>
>>>> Because bio is exactly that Ideal page carrier you are talking about.
>>> Wrong. multi path doesn't use bio. md accesses to the bio internal
>>> (it's not nice) and has the own way to carry pages. dm has the own
>>> mechanism on the top of bio. And bio doesn't work nicely for file
>>> systems such as btrfs, which handle multiple devices.
>>>
>>> Please stop your wrong argument 'bio is the ideal page carrier'.
>> What is the multi-device problem with bio?
> 
> Well, if it works nicely, I guess that we don't have something like
> drivers/dm/{dm-bio-record.h, dm-bio-list.h}, btrfs_multi_bio struct,
> or md's own page carrier?

It was an honest question.  I am seeking information, not denying your 
argument.

What, specifically, is this multi-device problem with bio, please?

	Jeff

--
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/