linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 PATCH 3/5] cfq-iosched: reimplement priorities using different service trees

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:08:48 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 PATCH 3/5] cfq-iosched: reimplement priorities using  different service trees

Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> writes:
>>> + * Index in the service_trees.
>>> + * IDLE is handled separately, so it has negative index
>>> + */
>>> +enum wl_prio_t {
>>> +     IDLE_WORKLOAD = -1,
>>> +     BE_WORKLOAD = 0,
>>> +     RT_WORKLOAD = 1
>>> +};
>>
>> What's wrong with IOPRIO_CLASS_(RT|BE|IDLE)?  Why invent another enum?
> Because I want to index inside my internal structures, and I have no
> control over the former ones.

Well, I already know and understand IOPRIO*, and it seems like it maps
exactly to what you're doing.  I'll leave it up to Jens, though, this is
a minor detail.

Cheers,
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/