Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:54:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:54:22 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:33546 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:54:21 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:58:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jens Axboe cc: James Bottomley , Marcin Dalecki , Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction In-Reply-To: <20020729083409.D4445@suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1192 Lines: 39 On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Jens Axboe wrote: > > I think Martin's was wrong in concept, mine was wrong in implementation. I don't understand why you think the concept is wrong. Right now all users clearly do want to free the tag on re-issue, and doing so clearly cleans up the code and avoids duplication. So I still don't see the advantage of your patch, even once you've fixed the locking issue. HOWEVER, if you really think that some future users might not want to have the tag played with, how about making the "at_head" thing a flags field, and letting people say so by having "INSERT_NOTAG" (and making the existing bit be INSERT_ATHEAD). So then the SCSI users would look like blk_insert_request(q, SRpnt->sr_request, at_head ? INSERT_ATHEAD : 0, SRpnt) while your future non-tag user might do blk_insert_request(q, newreq, INSERT_ATHEAD | INSERT_NOTAG, channel); _without_ having that unnecessary code duplication. Linus - 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/