Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:45:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:45:14 -0500 Received: from vasquez.zip.com.au ([203.12.97.41]:37900 "EHLO vasquez.zip.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 14:45:01 -0500 Message-ID: <3C2B7981.EDCBEFA@zip.com.au> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 11:41:53 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17-pre8 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Andre Hedrick , Keith Owens , kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The other part of the bio rewrite has been to get rid of another coupling: > the coupling between "struct buffer_head" (which is used for a limited > kind of memory management by a number of filesystems) and the act of > actually just doing IO. > > I used to think that we could just relegate "struct buffer_head" to _be_ > the IO entity, but it turns out to be much easier to just split off the IO > part, which is why you now have a separate "bio" structure for the block > IO part, and the buffer_head stuff uses that to get the work done. > So... would it be correct to say that there won't be any large changes to the buffer_head concept in 2.5? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/