From: Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PATCHSET 0/5] Peaceful co-existence of scsi_sgtable and Large IO sg-chaining Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:47:50 +0300
> As Jens said, there is nothing common to scsi_sgtable and > sglists. Save the fact that it is a massive conflict at > scsi-ml. They touch all the same places. > > Proposed is a simple way out. Two patchsets That produce the > same output at the end. > > One: scsi_sgtable_than_sg-chaining > Two: sg-chaining_than_scsi_sgtable Hmm, I thought that I've already posted a scsi_sgtable patch working with sg-chaining together. http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=118519987632758&w=2 I quoted from my mail: --- I think that the main issue of integrating sgtable and sglist is how to put scatterlist to scsi_sgtable structure. If we allocate a scsi_sgtable structure and sglists separately, the code is pretty simple. But probably it's not the best way from the perspective of performance. If we put sglists into the scsi_sgtable structure (like Boaz's patch does) and allocate and chain sglists only for large I/Os, we would have the better performance (especially for small I/Os). But we will have more complicated code. --- >From a quick look over your patchset, you chose the latter. And my patch uses the former. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
