linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V10 0/8] blk-mq-sched: improve sequential I/O performance

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]

Message-ID: <20171014231627.GA17485@ming.t460p>
Date:   Sun, 15 Oct 2017 07:16:28 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
        Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Tom Nguyen <tom81094@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 0/8] blk-mq-sched: improve sequential I/O performance

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:38:29PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> By any chance, could this be backported to 4.14? I'm confused with "SCSI: 
> allow to pass null rq to scsi_prep_state_check()" since it uses refactored 
> flags.
> 
> ===
> if (req && !(req->rq_flags & RQF_PREEMPT))
> ===
> 
> Is it safe to revert to REQ_PREEMPT here, or rq_flags should also be replaced 
> with cmd_flags?

Hi Oleksandr,

Inside scsi_mq_get_budget(), req is passed as null, and RQF_PREEMPT
won't be checked at all.

Thanks,
Ming