[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090709133746.GA21929@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:37:46 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Niel Lambrechts <niel.lambrechts@...il.com>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] block: use the same failfast bits for bio and
request
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:45:24AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> What's more disturbing to me is the different between RQ and BIO
> flags. __REQ_* are bit positions, REQ_* are masks while BIO_* are bit
> positions. Sadly it seems it's already too late to change that. I
> personally an not a big fan of simple accessors or flags defined as
> bit positions. They seem to obscure things without much benefit.
flags as bit positions generally only make sense if you use
test/set/clear_bit, otherwise they just confuse things. And the
accessors are pretty annoying, especially in the block layer. Trying to
find the places where a BIO flag has an actual effect is pretty painful
due to the mix of the different flags and the accessors.
--
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