[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e25a0ba3-356a-35d9-e22b-63ba124f555a@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 19:13:03 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
Cc: ming.lei@...hat.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 3/4] blk-mq: issue directly with bypass 'false' in
blk_mq_sched_insert_requests
On 12/5/18 6:11 PM, jianchao.wang wrote:
>> And why aren't we just using the list_empty() check like before, and not
>> having to add the inval cookie value?
>
> Because we use 'bypass == false' here, so blk_mq_try_issue_directly
> will take over the request totally, so the request will always be
> removed from the list and finally, the list must be empty.
>
> There is another way to identify the result of blk_mq_try_issue_directly.
> Currently,
> for the 'bypass == true' case,
> it always return BLK_STS_OK,
> for the 'bypass == false' case,
> it return the actual result, except for 'force == true' case
> where the request has to be inserted into hctx dispatch list
> and return a BLK_STS_OK.
>
> We could let the 'bypass == true' case also return the actual result to
> show what has been done in the blk_mq_try_issue_directly and thus we could
> get the actual result of the last request.
>
> Would you mind we handle it like this ?
I like that, sounds better than adding a new qc type.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists