From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:09:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:09:18 -0500 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([209.10.41.242]:56517 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:09:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:05:06 +0000 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Manfred Spraul , Steve Lord , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kiobuf-io-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Ben LaHaise , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait Message-ID: <20010206170506.H1167@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20010205205429.V1167@redhat.com> <20010206000704.F1167@redhat.com> <20010206180058.A15974@caldera.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20010206180058.A15974@caldera.de>; from hch@caldera.de on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:00:58PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 06:00:58PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 12:07:04AM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > > Is that a realistic basis for a cleaned-up ll_rw_blk.c? > > I don't think os. If we minimize the state in the IO container object, > the lower levels could split them at their guess and the IO completion > function just has to handle the case that it might be called for a smaller > object. The whole point of the post was that it is merging, not splitting, which is troublesome. How are you going to merge requests without having chains of scatter-gather entities each with their own completion callbacks? --Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/