Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: request->ioprio | Date | Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:13:36 +1000 |
| |
On Friday 15 August 2008 15:51:02 Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 12:16 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 August 2008 17:06:03 Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote: > > > Besides, I guess that accessing the io context information (such as > > > ioprio) of a request through elevator-specific private structures is > > > not something we want virtio_blk (or future users) to do. > > > > The only semantic I assumed was "higher is better". The server (ie. > > host) can really only use the information to schedule between I/Os for > > that particular guest anyway. > > Does that mean you are not going to incorporate the prio class system > that is used in Linux?
Actually, since it's unused at the moment, we can define it however we want. But note that this is an ABI; while the kernel-internal definitions are fluid, this semantic must stay the same (even if the actual values differ).
So we should probably put an explicit mapping function there anyway.
Thanks, Rusty. -- 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/
| |