linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:06:38 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Matias Bjørling <m@...rling.me>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:39:01AM +0100, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> A little crazy yes. The reason is that the NVMe admin queues and NVMe user 
> queues are driven by different request queues. Previously this was patched 
> up with having two queues in the lightnvm core. One for admin and another 
> for user. But was later merged into a single queue.

Why?  If you look at the current structure we have the admin queue
which is always allocated by the Low level driver, although it could and
should move to the core eventually.  And then we have Command set specific
request_queues for the I/O queues.  One per NS for NVM currenly, either
one per NS or one globally for LightNVM, and in Fabrics I currently
have another magic one :)  Due to the tagset pointer in struct nvme_ctrl
that's really easy to handle.
--
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/