From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] use scatter lists for all block pc requests and simplify hw handlers Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:09:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20050608070937.GB5749@suse.de> References: <1117901234.5005.9.camel@mulgrave> <1117955727.4961.8.camel@mina> <1117982408.4990.12.camel@mulgrave> <1117998665.4990.17.camel@mulgrave> <42A3E275.6030106@torque.net> <1118067544.5045.17.camel@mulgrave> <42A59C35.5060207@torque.net> <1118159966.4813.8.camel@mulgrave> <20050607180719.GB8172@suse.de> <1118172394.4791.9.camel@mulgrave> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1118172394.4791.9.camel@mulgrave> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: James Bottomley Cc: LIRANS@il.ibm.com, Mike Christie , Douglas Gilbert , device-mapper development , linux-scsi List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 07 2005, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 20:07 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Why multi-bio? No one should ever have to build a request with multiple > > bio's in one go, that's pointless. The only reason multi-bio requests > > exist is because of the file systems not submitting big extents in one > > submission. The whole io path would be faster and simpler were it not > > for multi-bio requests :-) > > OK, OK, sorry thinko ... I meant multi-biovec (which can be a single > bio) ... however, I'm not the only one who keeps being confused by > this ... > > Incidentally, do I take it you're happy with all of this and I can take > (at least the block pieces) through the SCSI tree? I was planning on trying a block tree out, let me try and merge it first and look it over if you don't mind. -- Jens Axboe