Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933765AbcCOXMI (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:12:08 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:47160 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753895AbcCOXMG (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:12:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1458083523.2375.120.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] mempool based chained scatterlist alloc/free api api From: James Bottomley To: Ming Lin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: Christoph Hellwig Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:12:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1458081569-30953-1-git-send-email-mlin@kernel.org> References: <1458081569-30953-1-git-send-email-mlin@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1345 Lines: 36 On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 15:39 -0700, Ming Lin wrote: > From: Ming Lin > > Hi list, > > This moves the mempool based chained scatterlist alloc/free code from > scsi_lib.c to lib/scatterlist.c. > > So other drivers(for example, the under development NVMe over fabric > drivers) can also use it. > > Ming Lin (2): > scatterlist: add mempool based chained SG alloc/free api > scsi: use the new chained SG api > > drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 129 ++---------------------------------- > include/linux/scatterlist.h | 12 ++++ > lib/scatterlist.c | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 122 deletions(-) I'd really rather this were a single patch so git can tell us the code motion. If you add in one patch and remove in another the code motion trackers don't see it. Secondly, you said "This copied code from scsi_lib.c to scatterlist.c and modified it a bit" could you move in one patch and modify in another, so we can see exactly what you're changing. Thirdly, are you sure the pool structure for NVMe should be the same as for SCSI? We don't do buddy pools for 1,2 or 4 entry transactions in SCSI just basically because of heuristics, but the packetised io characteristics of NVMe make single entry lists more likely for it, don't they? James