On 19/2/18 4:33 am, 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.
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.
If any module outside of the code that implements it needs to know
about it,
then it is in the KPI and should be documented in the KPI documentation
(e.g. man 9)
Since the Filesystems need to know about this, it must be an externally
visible feature and therefore needs to be documented.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
