On 07/29/2013 05:46 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 02:14:36PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: >> So I don't think (completely) getting rid of ata_port->qcmds[] will be >> possible, and just converting the ata_scsi_queuecmd() path to use the >> extra SHT->cmd_size pre-allocation for *ata_queued_cmd might end up >> being more trouble that it's worth. Still undecided on that part.. >> >> Tejun, do you have any thoughts + input here..? > > libata exception handling which includes probing doesn't go through > SCSI at all. It all works inside libata proper using ata_queuecmds > and only the result is exposed to SCSI. Most of those SCSI semantics > need to be emulated anyway, so this makes things a lot easier than > going through SCSI for each command. As it currently stands, it'd be > a lot of effort to try to embed ata_qc's into higher layer construct. > Given how it's used, I don't think it's a high priority task. > > One thing which would probably be worthwhile tho is getting rid of the > bitmap based qc tag allocator in libata. That one is just borderline > stupid to keep around on any setup which is supposed to be scalable.
Your border might be wider than mine :-). Yes, the bitmap should definitely go. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/
