[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1513277814.2475.45.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 18:56:55 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To: "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC: "kernel-team@...com" <kernel-team@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"osandov@...com" <osandov@...com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] blk-mq: make blk_abort_request() trigger timeout path
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> void blk_abort_request(struct request *req)
> {
> - if (blk_mark_rq_complete(req))
> - return;
>
> if (req->q->mq_ops) {
> - blk_mq_rq_timed_out(req, false);
> + req->deadline = jiffies;
> + mod_timer(&req->q->timeout, 0);
> } else {
> + if (blk_mark_rq_complete(req))
> + return;
> blk_delete_timer(req);
> blk_rq_timed_out(req);
> }
This patch makes blk_abort_request() asynchronous for blk-mq. Have all callers
been audited to verify whether this change is safe?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists