From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 21 11:53:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DCCA17 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:53:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ivoras@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311BC8FC0A for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id d16so4927105vcd.5 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:53:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Z4rx0M19dNeSCGknWKYHvhvT4Nd2l3xXfrjC5N6XboA=; b=RZkk1sUkqC4jeNVs1oUUR/CLp/pwhYfDwrk9cCoIwpY32KgaJLT+rIfYI1pMKxAz61 tj/HbTMIv98y0u2BsJf2sfHTR6GN93cHGRg/N6KYX1RavYwHORpz+bMNpPlgRn6XZCtP UxzBsm0Tcl1JgXGwDBOU//vp7RjlWjvJjRCZQ059AWBSUidboNLIi9wa0RyzQ8zbky0m ewWtfWAsYLG967XXLEWhHUcah2tnr7zlUx14MUnIhrBtM9WxFPEFXw8yxIUW6VI8tGju 1kE9GIHQvwytVv0dBIKm12DrP+W7qAB1ntyk6nGC+LAPpFIdquDzY9qnTQ9kFBm//pLD Ap3A== Received: by 10.58.15.72 with SMTP id v8mr19721426vec.55.1356090795182; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:53:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ivoras@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.107.230 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:52:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121220201523.GD53644@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20121219135451.GU71906@kib.kiev.ua> <20121220201523.GD53644@kib.kiev.ua> From: Ivan Voras Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:52:35 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ze5uIP8CwY_zYzbkLp5mWEYK5jE Message-ID: Subject: Re: Unmapped I/O To: Konstantin Belousov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:53:22 -0000 On 20 December 2012 21:15, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Nothing is changed for existing GEOM classes, and it does not mean anything > for GEOM developers, unless she wants to change the GEOM class to handle > unmapped BIOs. Understood, but the intention of my question was: do you recommend GEOM classes should take the effort and implement unmapped BIOs whenever possible? Your change in g_part.c is trivial - this is because g_part doesn't actually touch the BIO data, only pass it on?