Re: [patch 3/4] io controller: Core IO controller implementationlogic

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

Vivek Goyal said:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:21:45PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:30:25 -0500
>> vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > o Core IO controller implementation
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>>
>> 2 comments after a quick look.
>>
>>  - I don't recommend generic work queue. More stacked dependency between
>> "work"
>>    is not good. (I think disk-driver uses "work" for their jobs.)
>
> Sorry, I did not get this. Are you recommending that don't create a new
> work queue, instead use existing work queue (say kblockd) to submit the
> bios
> here?
>
Ah, no, recomending new-original its own workqueue. I'm sorry that it seems
I missed something at reading your patch.
(other person may have other opinion, here;)

> I will look into it. I was little worried about a kblockd being overworked
> in case of too many logical devices enabling IO controller.
>

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/