Re: [Kiobuf-io-devel] RFC: Kernel mechanism: Compound event wait

[Jens Axboe]

On Tue, Feb 06 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > [...] so I would be _really_ nervous about just turning it on
> > > silently. This is all very much a 2.5.x-kind of thing ;)
> > 
> > Then you might want to apply this :-)
> > 
> > --- drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~      Wed Feb  7 02:38:31 2001
> > +++ drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c       Wed Feb  7 02:38:42 2001
> > @@ -1048,7 +1048,7 @@
> >     /* Verify requested block sizes. */
> >     for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> >             struct buffer_head *bh = bhs[i];
> > -           if (bh->b_size % correct_size) {
> > +           if (bh->b_size != correct_size) {
> >                     printk(KERN_NOTICE "ll_rw_block: device %s: "
> >                            "only %d-char blocks implemented (%u)\n",
> >                            kdevname(bhs[0]->b_dev),
> 
> Actually, I'd rather leave it in, but speed it up with the saner and
> faster
> 
>       if (bh->b_size & (correct_size-1)) {
>               ...
> 
> That way people who _want_ to test the odd-size thing can do so. And
> normal code (that never generates requests on any other size than the
> "native" size) won't ever notice either way.

Fine, as I said I didn't spot anything bad so that's why it was changed.

> (Oh, we'll eventually need to move to "correct_size == hardware
> blocksize", not the "virtual blocksize" that it is now. As it it a tester
> needs to set the soft-blk size by hand now).

Exactly, wrt earlier mail about submitting < hw block size requests to
the lower levels.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/