On Tue, Jun 12 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 08:24 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 09:33 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > The other main request type is blk_pc_request(). In the data setup it's
> > > > indentical to blk_fs_request(), there's a bio chain off ->bio. It's a
> > > > byte granularity entity though, so you should check ->data_len for the
> > > > size of it. ->cmd[] holds a SCSI cdb, which is the command you are
> > > > supposed to handle.
> > >
> > > SCSI? I'm even more lost now.
> > >
> > > Q: So what *are* the commands?
> >
> > They are SCSI commands!
> >
> > > Q: Who puts them in my queue?
> >
> > If you want to support SG_IO for instance, you'd have to deal with SCSI
> > commands.
>
> I do not. If someone wants to implement a SCSI layer over virtio, I
> think that's wonderful. Fortunately, that's not the problem I'm trying
> to solve.
Then you can blissfully ignore blk_pc_request() and just keep your
current code for rejecting !blk_fs_request().
> > -o barrier=1 for ext3, it doesn't use barriers by default.
>
> That's, um, a little disturbing.
>
> But, it works. Thanks!
Well, feel free to send a patch making barrier=1 the default, then I'll
make sure that mails from users that are confused because performance is
suddenly much worse get redirected to you :-)
Kudos to XFS for making it the default, though!
--
Jens Axboe
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home