[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181028154405.GA26300@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 08:44:06 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
ooo@...ctrozaur.com, Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libosd: Remove ignored __weak attribute
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:28:21AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> The OSD protocol failed to get traction in the industry, adoption was
> very limited. If the code just plugged straight into existing kernel
> interfaces it would be easier to justify keeping it around. However, the
> OSD support requires bidirectional command support so we carry a bunch
> of additional plumbing in both block and SCSI to accommodate it. There
> are no other users of these interfaces, so dropping OSD would mean we
> could simplify some (hot) code paths. That would be a win in my book.
> Consequently, if a patch were to materialize that disentangled and
> removed OSD, I'd be inclined to merge it.
In addition to the exofs and osd removal I sent out I've also done the
SCSI cleanup here:
http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/remove-scsi-osd
unfortunately the bsg-lib code also uses the block bidi support, but
then again at least for the blk-mq case that code isn't too bad,
and Jens is about to remove the legacy request code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists