Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in blk_recalc_rq_segments about VMERGE

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <James.Bottomley@...>
Cc: <mpatocka@...>, <fujita.tomonori@...>, <jens.axboe@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-scsi@...>, <linux-parisc@...>
Date: Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 1:23 pm

From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:52:25 -0500


All of this is gibberish, we've been over this a few times already
in this thread.

For a dumb I/O card, you advertise SG_ALL capabilities, the IOMMU
is going to merge things as it would have anyways, and you have
code in the driver to advance SG entries after each "dumb I/O".

There is zero value to the vmerge code, the real gains are being
realized already.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in bl..., David Miller, (Sun Jul 20, 1:23 pm)
Re: [PATCH] block: fix q-&gt;max_segment_size checking in bl..., John David Anglin, (Thu Jul 24, 10:40 pm)