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_at_ -- 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 valuable. -- Andriy GaponReceived on Sun Feb 18 2018 - 21:50:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:15 UTC