On 18/02/2018 22:33, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:15:24PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> A> On 18/02/2018 15:26, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> A> > My only point is that it is a performance improvement. IMHO that's 
> enough :)
> A> 
> A> I don't think that passing an invalid argument to a documented KPI is 
> "enough"
> A> for any optimization.
> I don't see a sense in making this KPI so sacred. This is something used 
> internally
> in kernel, and not used outside. The KPI has changed several times in the 
> past.

I don't have anything against changing KPI.
At the same time think that it should be well-defined at all times.

> A> > If you can't suggest a more elegant way of doing that improvement, then 
> all
> A> > I can suggest is to document it and add its support to ZFS.
> A> 
> A> In return I can only suggest that (1) you run your suggestion by arch@ -- 
> unless
> A> that's already been done and you can point me to the discussion,  (2) 
> document
> A> it and (3) double-check that all implementations confirm to it.
> I can provide a patch for ZFS.

Thank you.  But I think that the documentation update will be much more 

Andriy Gapon
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to