[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071211154803.58beb681.zaitcev@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:03 -0800
From: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
To: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, j-nomura@...jp.nec.com, zaitcev@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:46:47 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> if (scsi_status == 0) {
> - uptodate = 1;
> + error = 0;
> } else {
> - uptodate = 0;
> + error = -EIO;
> rq->errors = scsi_status;
> }
> - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors);
> - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
> + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
> + BUG();
Acked-by: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
I follow the discussion, actually, and wanted to ask someone to look
closer if it's appropriate to use __blk_end_request() here.
My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only
takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it
calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error
and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? If not,
and the above is sufficient, why have blk_end_request at all?
-- Pete
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists