Re: New TRIM/UNMAP tree published (2009-05-02)

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On Sunday 03 May 2009 17:42:16 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 06:02:51PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > I agree with Hugh. The allocation is done at, too-low in the food chain.
> > (And that free of buffer at upper layer allocated by lower layer).
> > 
> > I think you need to separate the: "does lld need buffer, what size"
> > from the "here is buffer prepare", so upper layer that can sleep does
> > sleep.
> 
> So you want two function pointers in the request queue relating to discard?
> 
> > In all other buffer needing operations the allocation is done before
> > submission of request, No?
> 
> It's not true for the flush request (the example I quoted).  Obviously,
> the solution adopted here by IDE is Bad and Wrong ...

When speaking about "the solution" do you mean that quick & ugly hack
that I needed to fix the unexpected regression during late -rc cycle? ;)

The proper solution would involve adding 'struct ide_cmd flush_cmd' to
ide_drive_t but I never got to verify/inquiry that is OK with the block
layer (if there can be only one flush rq outstanding or if we can have
both q->pre_flush_rq and q->post_flush_rq queued at the same time)...

Thanks,
Bart
--
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/