[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A5626F2.7070404@garzik.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:20:50 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
Indeed -- the accessors mean in practice that you always have at least
_two_ things to grep for, just to catch all accesses. Block layer is
pretty bad about that style of usage :/
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists