On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 15:13 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:42:28AM -0700, Daniel Stodden wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 10:03 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > In the case at hand, increasing the ring size was way more productive.
> > > > At which point the queue depth multiplies as well. And I currently
> > > > expect that the longer it gets the more urgent the issue you describe
> > > > will be.
> > >
> > > You wouldn't have patches for that somewhere tucked away? I am going over
> > > the patches for 3.1 xen-blkback and was thinking to have them all queued
> > > up and
> > > test them all at once..
> >
> > I was going to send the kernel patch right after, just to discover that
> > xen-blkback lacks some of the synchronization items the original one was
> > based on. It's coming, but it's rather going to be a series.
>
> That is fine. Please also CC lkml when posting the series. Thanks!
That's a more interesting thing, actually: Do you plan to maintain this
stuff? Because xen-blkback presently has no dedicated MAINTAINERS entry,
iirc, so I guess it defaults to Jens.
It might indeed make more sense to collect tested batches, and submit
them as such.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home