[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/28] blk_end_request: full I/O completion handler (take 3)

On Tue, Dec 04 2007 at 14:16 +0200, Jens Axboe <axboe kernel dk> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30 2007, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>> Hello Jens,
>> The following is the updated patch-set for blk_end_request().
>> Changes since the last version are only minor updates to catch up
>> with the base kernel changes.
>> Do you agree the implementation of blk_end_request()?
>> If there's no problem, could you merge it to your tree?
>> Or does it have to be merged to -mm tree first?
>> Boaz,
>> Could you review the newly added PATCH 27 which converts the bidi part,
>> and give me your comments?
>> It uses blk_end_request_callback() in PATCH 25, which was only for
>> the tricky ide-cd driver.
>> If bidi added a 'resid' member to struct request instead of reusing
>> 'data_len' for the other purpose, it could use the standard
>> blk_end_request() instead.
>> ------------------ Changes from the previous post ---------------------
>> Changes between take2 and take3:
>>   o Rebased on top of 2.6.24-rc3-mm2
> OK, so this means that I can't apply it unfortunately. It depends on
> other patches in -mm (bidi).
> SCSI sits on block, so the best approach imho is to base this patchset
> on mainline so I can include the block bits.

I was wishing that the bidi work can go into 2.6.25, I guess that's 
James to say. If so than it is not important what order they go in.

Or the patchset can be submitted in two parts, with scsi and remove-of-
old-API in a later stage. 

Or *rant* Boaz can just rebase his work again *rant*.

Kiyoshi, It's OK, if you have a maintainer that is willing to
accept your work then go head, My code can wait, no problem.
Just resolve the resid issue in scsi_io_completion()
(See my other mail)

Thanks for doing this

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]