Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets

2005-04-19 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Apr 19 2005, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19 2005, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can > > > > be removed from SCSI mid

Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets

2005-04-19 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Apr 19 2005, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can > > > be removed from SCSI midlayer, do you agree to change REQ_SPECIAL to > >

Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets

2005-04-19 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 14:34 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote: > > And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can > > be removed from SCSI midlayer, do you agree to change REQ_SPECIAL to > > mean special requests? If so, I have three proposal

Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets

2005-04-19 Thread Jens Axboe
On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote: > And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can > be removed from SCSI midlayer, do you agree to change REQ_SPECIAL to > mean special requests? If so, I have three proposals. > > * move REQ_SOFTBARRIER setting to right after the al

Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets

2005-04-18 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, James. Hello, Jens. James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 07:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> As it's been almost a week since I posted scsi midlayer patchsets and >>haven't heard anything yet, I've been wondering what's going on. Are >>they under review or all dropped? If they