[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090513055913.GZ4140@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 07:59:14 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swim3: use blk_end_request instead of
blk_update_request
On Wed, May 13 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> Yeah, conversion was easy that way. I think it's sane to have
> >>> blk_update_request() exported as long as request internal tinkering is
> >>> kept in block layer proper.
> >> blk_update_request() is needed for request-based dm to keep the request
> >> completion ordering in bottom-up, although request-based dm is not
> >> in upstream yet.
> >>
> >> Jens, please keep blk_update_request() exported.
> >
> > I did, I applied the swim3 patches yesterday as well.
>
> I don't think the patch is correct. If it calls
> blk_end_request_all(), it should also clear the current request which
> the patch doesn't. Also, given that the driver doesn't support
> partially failing the request, I think it's correct to fail
> segment-by-segment to avoid merged request failure affects unrelated
> bios.
>
> Thanks.
OK, I'll back them out for now.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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