On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 08:40:10AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 23.10.12 at 20:50, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <kon...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 08:09:27PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> On 23/10/12 19:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> >>>> index c6decb9..2b982b2 100644
> >> >>>> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> >>>> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> >>>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct pending_req {
> >> >>>> unsigned short operation;
> >> >>>> int status;
> >> >>>> struct list_head free_list;
> >> >>>> + unsigned int
> >> >>>> unmap_seg[BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST];
> >>
> >> Should I change this to a bool? Since we are only setting it to 0 or 1.
> >
> > I would just keep it as 'int'. Eventually we can replace this with a
> > bit-map, but that can be done later.
>
> I think this should be a bitmap from the beginning - why would
> you want to waste 44 bytes per request for something that fits
> in a single unsigned long (and the picture would get worse with
> the number-of-segments extension)?
>
> Also - am I taking this work being done here as a silent agreement
> to not invest into blkif2 to streamline the various extensions
> floating around?
I haven't been able (time-wise) to look at making blkif2 a possibility
and I don't want to hinder this work - which provides great
performance benefits.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
