From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754765AbZCEKmn (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:42:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755305AbZCEKmU (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:42:20 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:53268 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754413AbZCEKmS (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:42:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:41:59 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jens Axboe Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , tglx@linutronix.de, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, jengelh@medozas.de, bharrosh@panasas.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.29-rc6-2450cf in scsi_lib.c (was: Large amount of scsi-sgpool)objects Message-ID: <20090305104159.GE32407@elte.hu> References: <20090305182958Q.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20090305100901.GU11787@kernel.dk> <20090305101436.GV11787@kernel.dk> <20090305192737I.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20090305103023.GW11787@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090305103023.GW11787@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jens Axboe wrote: > > > Totally untested, comments welcome... > > > > Yeah, I think that updating bi_seg_front_size and > > bi_seg_back_size at one place, __blk_recalc_rq_segments, is > > better. I thought about the same way. But we are already in > > -rc7 and this must go into mainline now. So I chose a > > less-intrusive way (similar to what we have done in the > > past). > > > > As you know, the merging code is really complicated and we > > could overlook stuff easily. ;) It might be better to > > simplify the merging code a bit. > > If someone (Ingo?) is willing to test the last variant, I'd > much rather add that. It does simplify it (imho), and it kills > 23 lines while only adding 9. But a quick response would be > nice, then I can ask Linus to pull it later today. sure, can give it a whirl. Note that your patch in this thread does no apply cleanly. Could you please send a pull request of your latest fixes that i could pull into tip:out-of-tree for testing purposes? Ingo