Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:52:35 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unmapped I/O Message-ID: <CAF-QHFXdeG0ZHOp1L5TQ25t4maruz3=pmFEco0x8mMqcR-Mr=w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121220201523.GD53644@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20121219135451.GU71906@kib.kiev.ua> <kauqfc$rau$1@ger.gmane.org> <20121220201523.GD53644@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 December 2012 21:15, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> 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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF-QHFXdeG0ZHOp1L5TQ25t4maruz3=pmFEco0x8mMqcR-Mr=w>