[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090503154216.GU8822@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 09:42:16 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
Subject: Re: New TRIM/UNMAP tree published (2009-05-02)
On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 06:02:51PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> I agree with Hugh. The allocation is done at, too-low in the food chain.
> (And that free of buffer at upper layer allocated by lower layer).
>
> I think you need to separate the: "does lld need buffer, what size"
> from the "here is buffer prepare", so upper layer that can sleep does
> sleep.
So you want two function pointers in the request queue relating to discard?
> In all other buffer needing operations the allocation is done before
> submission of request, No?
It's not true for the flush request (the example I quoted). Obviously,
the solution adopted here by IDE is Bad and Wrong ...
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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