Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] Persistent grant maps for xen blk drivers

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 08:40:10AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 23.10.12 at 20:50, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 08:09:27PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> On 23/10/12 19:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c 
> > b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> >>>> index c6decb9..2b982b2 100644
> >> >>>> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> >>>> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> >>>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct pending_req {
> >> >>>>       unsigned short          operation;
> >> >>>>       int                     status;
> >> >>>>       struct list_head        free_list;
> >> >>>> +     unsigned int            
> >> >>>> unmap_seg[BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST];
> >> 
> >> Should I change this to a bool? Since we are only setting it to 0 or 1.
> > 
> > I would just keep it as 'int'. Eventually we can replace this with a
> > bit-map, but that can be done later.
> 
> I think this should be a bitmap from the beginning - why would
> you want to waste 44 bytes per request for something that fits
> in a single unsigned long (and the picture would get worse with
> the number-of-segments extension)?
> 
> Also - am I taking this work being done here as a silent agreement
> to not invest into blkif2 to streamline the various extensions
> floating around?

I haven't been able (time-wise) to look at making blkif2 a possibility
and I don't want to hinder this work - which provides great
performance benefits.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel