From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bind bsg to request_queue instead of gendisk
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:25:00 +0100
On Wed, Feb 14 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
It seems that it would be better to bind bsg devices to request_queue
instead of gendisk. This enables any
From: FUJITA Tomonori [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bind bsg to request_queue instead of gendisk
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:25:34 +0900
From: Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bind bsg to request_queue instead of gendisk
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:25:00 +0100
On Wed
Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:53:31AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
It seems that it would be better to bind bsg devices to request_queue
instead of gendisk. This enables any objects to define own
request_handler and create own bsg device (under sysfs).
Possible enhancements:
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
The only place that bsg_register_rq is called is via
blk_register_queue, which is only called by add_disk. But not all
devices have a block interface or need the gendisk that these
functions assume.
FYI - very shortly, we expect dynamic transport entities to start calling
On Wed, Feb 14 2007, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
It seems that it would be better to bind bsg devices to request_queue
instead of gendisk. This enables any objects to define own
request_handler and create own bsg device (under sysfs).
Possible enhancements:
- I removed gendisk but it would be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:53 +0900:
It seems that it would be better to bind bsg devices to request_queue
instead of gendisk. This enables any objects to define own
request_handler and create own bsg device (under sysfs).
Possible enhancements:
- I removed gendisk but
6 matches
Mail list logo