[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200326144556.GA4317@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 07:45:56 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
bob.liu@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com,
ming.lei@...hat.com, osandov@...com, jthumshirn@...e.de,
minwoo.im.dev@...il.com, damien.lemoal@....com,
andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, hare@...e.com, tj@...nel.org,
ajay.joshi@....com, sagi@...mberg.me, dsterba@...e.com,
bvanassche@....org, dhowells@...hat.com, asml.silence@...il.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] block: Introduce REQ_ALLOCATE flag for
REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:34:42AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> I just worry about the proliferation of identical merging and splitting
> code throughout the block stack as we add additional single-range, no
> payload operations (Verify, etc.). I prefer to enforce the semantics in
> the LLD and not in the plumbing. But I won't object to a separate
> REQ_OP_ALLOCATE if you find the resulting code duplication acceptable.
I find it acceptable for now. And I think we should find some way
(e.g. by being table driven) to share code between differnet opcodes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists