[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912170811130.15740@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:16:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>
cc: linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James.Bottomley@...e.de, hch@...radead.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [git patches] xfs and block fixes for virtually indexed arches
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>
> Linus, any word on these? I'd really love to get jejb and hch off
> my back. :)
I hate them.
I don't see what the point of allowing kernel virtual addresses in bio's
is. It's wrong. The fact that XFS does that sh*t is an XFS issue. Handle
it there.
Fix XFS. Or convince me with some really good arguments, and make sure
that Jens signs off on the cr*p too.
In other words, the thing I object to isn't even the new flushing thing,
it's this idiocy:
- save off virtual address:
..
bio->bi_private = data;
..
- do vmalloc_to_page:
+ if (is_vmalloc_addr(data)) {
+ flush_kernel_dcache_addr(data);
+ page = vmalloc_to_page(data);
+ } else
+ page = virt_to_page(data);
WTF? Why the hell should the block layer support this kind of absolute
crap? When has "use random kernel virtual address" ever been a valid thing
to do for IO?
Why aren't you doing this before you submit the vmalloc range for IO?
So no. Not a way in hell do I pull this for 33. And preferably never.
Linus
--
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