On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 22:10, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:57:11PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Ok, I see your point, we don't strictly need the waited check. I had
> > added it as an optimization at first, so that those who waited once were
> > not penalized by further queue_full checks.
>
> I could taste the feeling of not penalizing while reading the code but
> that's just a feeling, in reality if they blocked it means they set full
> by themself and there was no request so they want to go to sleep no
> matter ->full or not ;)
You're completely right, as the patch changed I didn't realize waited
wasn't needed anymore ;-)
Are you adding the hunk from yesterday to avoid unplugs when q->rq.count
!= 0?
-chris
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:27 EST