From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] use scatter lists for all block pc requests and simplify hw handlers Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:50:54 -0400 Message-ID: <42A705CE.7000605@adaptec.com> References: <1117847972.23638.62.camel@mina> <20050607180716.GA8172@suse.de> <1118173118.4791.17.camel@mulgrave> <42A65F5D.6060805@torque.net> <1118235541.5042.16.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:10192 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261277AbVFHOv1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:51:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1118235541.5042.16.camel@mulgrave> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Douglas Gilbert , Jens Axboe , Mike Christie , linux-scsi , Kai.Makisara@kolumbus.fi On 06/08/05 08:59, James Bottomley wrote: > Also, I really don't think OSD should be a character device. It's > definitely a block device, it just happens to have a two dimensional > address space instead of a one dimensional one. Very true. Although _management_ of OSD contents would not be "block device", but the next layer up. (hint) > Really, I think it's cleaner for head or tail insertion to be handled at > the time the request is generated. However, the block queues of > character taps are special; we certainly don't need all the elevator > merging machinery, so perhaps we should have a way of setting them up as > noop elevator? Agreed. Treating block queues of character devices with no-op elevator would yield very clean and generalized implementation. Luben