Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:51:43 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] ide: locking improvements
Message-ID: <20081009065141.GV19428@kernel.dk>
References: <20081008202930.19112.90371.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081008202930.19112.90371.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1343
Lines: 34

On Wed, Oct 08 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> Locking improvements in preparation for replacing the global ide_lock
> spinlock by per-hwgroup spinlocks [1].
> 
> [1] patch (which is partially based on 2005 patch from Scalex86) for this
> is also ready but it needs some more audit and testing
> 
> diffstat:
>  drivers/ide/ide-cd.c     |   38 ++++++-------
>  drivers/ide/ide-io.c     |  129 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
>  drivers/ide/ide-ioctls.c |    3 -
>  drivers/ide/ide-lib.c    |    7 --
>  drivers/ide/ide-proc.c   |   25 +--------
>  drivers/ide/ide.c        |    7 --
>  6 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-)

Sorry, but I just have to ask 'why'? IDE is seeing a whole lot of churn
for something that should essentially be a stable code base in
maintenance mode, and now scalability improvements?

Just doesn't make ANY sense to me, sorry. We may end up with a cleaner
code base, but likely also a buggier one. It's not like hardware
coverage testing is all that great, considering some of the ancient
stuff it supports :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/