[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D91C8E7.5070205@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:56:23 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: eliminate ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE
On 2011-03-29 00:15, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28 2011 at 4:23am -0400,
> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:56AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> Should blk_kick_flush() process the flush request without calling
>>> elv_insert() -- like is done with open coded list_add() in
>>> blk_insert_flush()?
>>>
>>> Or should blk_insert_flush() use elv_insert() with
>>> ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE too?
>>
>> Hmmm... I would prefer the latter. Given that INSERT_REQUEUE and
>> FRONT are no longer different, it would probably be better to use
>> FRONT tho. The only reason REQUEUE is used there is to avoid kicking
>> the queue from elv_insert(), which is gone now.
>
> OK, I came up with the following patch.
>
> Jens, this is just a natural cleanup given the code that resulted from
> the flush-merge and onstack plugging changes coming together.
That looks nice and clean. What kind of testing has been done?
--
Jens Axboe
--
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