[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110531124913.GB12679@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:49:13 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: jaxboe@...ionio.com, msb@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: Move non-rotational flag to queue limits
On Mon, May 30 2011 at 10:19pm -0400,
Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> writes:
>
> Mike> blk_queue_nonrot vs blk_queue_non_rotational lends itself to a
> Mike> small amount of confusion.
>
> Yeah, I just didn't feel like mucking with the existing call. But it
> looks like there are only a handful of users.
>
>
> Mike> What about:
> Mike> s/blk_queue_nonrot/blk_queue_non_rotational/
> Mike> s/blk_queue_non_rotational/blk_queue_set_non_rotational/
> Mike> ?
>
> Most of our other block layer calls take the form blk_queue_max_foo()
> for setting foo and {bdev,queue}_max_foo() for querying.
>
> So I guess the most appropriate thing to do would be to do something
> like this?
>
>
> block: Move non-rotational flag to queue limits
>
> To avoid special-casing the non-rotational flag when stacking it is
> moved from the queue flags to be part of the queue limits. This allows
> us to handle it like the remaining I/O topology information.
>
> Also rename blk_queue_nonrot() to be consistent with block layer calling
> conventions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Acked-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
--
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