On 5/3/18 1:24 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: >> >> >> On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: >>>> If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private >>>> field >>>> into a union of the private and ki_ioprio field. It seems like the users of >>>> the private field all use it at a point where we can yank the priority from >>>> the kiocb before the private field is used. Comments and suggestions >>>> welcome. >>> >>> Or we could just make ki_hint a u8 or u16 ... seems unlikely we'll need >>> 32 bits of ki_hint. (currently defined values are 1-5) >> >> I like the approach of using a u16 for the ki_hint. I'll update and >> resubmit. > > It's intended to be a mask. If you do shrink it for now, then we need some > guard code to ensure it can always carry what it needs to. >
Got it, I'll add the guard to rw_hint_valid along with a comment about being limited by the size of ki_hint in case we get to a situation where 16 bits is not enough.
