Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 May 2004 11:44:47 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.6-mm5 |
| |
On Sat, May 22 2004, hch@infradead.org wrote: > > +disk-barrier-core.patch > > +disk-barrier-core-tweaks.patch > > +disk-barrier-ide.patch > > +disk-barrier-ide-symbol-expoprt.patch > > +disk-barrier-ide-warning-fix.patch > > +disk-barrier-scsi.patch > > > > Support for IDE and SCSI barriers > > > > +disk-barrier-dm.patch > > +disk-barrier-md.patch > > > > Via device mapper and raid as well. > > Some comments on the API and the SCSI part: > > - issue_flush_fn prototype choice is bad, the request_queue_t argument > wile always be disk->queue so it's not needed and only causes > confusion.
Agree, it's mutated into place which is probably the reason for the dupe.
> - issue_flush sounds a little strange to me, what about cache_flush > or sync_cache instead?
Fine with me, I'm notoriously bad at naming.
> - scsi_drive.issue_flush should take a scsi_device * as first parameter, > not struct device * - makes life for bother caller and callee easier. > - should probably add a small helper to get the scsi_driver from the > gendisk instead of duplicating the code, ala: > > static inline struct scsi_driver *scsi_disk_driver(struct gendisk *disk) > { > return *(struct scsi_driver **) disk->private_data; > }
Fine too.
> - the WCE check should move into sd_sync_cache
Ditto
> - NULL scsi_disk can't happen for sd_issue_flush, no need to check, > and thus the disctinction of sd_issue_flush vs sd_sync_cache can > go and sd_shutdown can simply call the cache flush method.
Neat, thanks.
Thanks for the review Christoph!
-- Jens Axboe
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |