Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, Sep 09 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
[...]
quoted text
>> The sysfs changes looks too much for 2.6.27-rcX but without the sysfs
>> changes, we have the cmdfilter under /sys/block/sda/queue/, right? We
>> don't need to worry about compatibility, but /sys/block/sda is more
>> appropriate? (though I don't think that the cmd filter is a good idea
>> so I don't care much).
>
> I agree, under sda/ makes a lot more sense than under sda/queue/

Well, but why is it in struct request_queue then? Is it going to be
moved back to the gendisk eventually?

quoted text
>
>> Jens, would it be better to just disable the cmdfilter stuff for
>> 2.6.27? It's too late for another try to fix this broken stuff, I
>> guess.
>
> Yeah, it's certainly starting to look like it... The amount of changes
> to unbreak it are too large to submit now, so lets postpone it until
> 2.6.28.

I won't bother with the patch against 2.6.27-rc then. What about 2.6.28
though? Not that I really care whether the cmd_filter appears under sda/
or sda/queue/, I just wanted to point out that the sysfs code can be
simplified considerably. The things I do care about, of course, are the
two problems that have been fixed by my patch: There are no spurious
warnings and stack dumps due to kobject reinitialisation and the
cmd_filter sysfs interface inherits proper locking. Please take this
into consideration if you decide not to reuse the queue layer sysfs
interface. Otherwise, just let me know if you want me to port the patch
(just the cmd_filter part or the sysfs stuff as well) to next-200809..

Regards,

Elias
--
unsubscribe notice
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/