Re: another IDE cleanup: kill duplicated code
Jens Axboe (email@example.com)
Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:47:56 +0100
On Tue, Feb 12 2002, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12 2002, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > > I just love how the copy of a request has worked its way back into to the
> > > code-base. :-/ I recall Linus stating it was/is a horrid mess.
> > The copy itself is not the horrid mess, the handling of multi write is
> > what is the horrible mess. Having a private copy to mess with is pretty
> > much a necessity IMO if you want to handle > current_nr_sectors at the
> > time without completing it chunk by chunk.
> Exactly, and I am about to have a valid clean solution that is short and
> proper. Now that I have the handler working, I need to have the one walk
> function to do the bio indexing. Also it is less than 30 lines.
Those changes add yet another member to struct bio for no good reason.
I'd much rather just do the private copy. So... ->
> Not the stuff you added as an interm fix :-/
I don't consider the copy an interim fix at all. But please show your
working handler and we can discuss it, it's pointless to debate what fix
is the better one you are sitting on yours.
> You know why these changes people are pushing are wrong, because it is way
> to early to being the compression code process.
The global read-ahead change is surely not what we want. The IDE
cleanups I've seen so far look good to me.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/