[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e89360d-3325-92af-0436-b34df748f3e2@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:20:32 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, brking@...ibm.com,
hare@...e.de, hch@....de
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
chenxiang66@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 03/18] scsi: core: Implement reserved command
handling
On 6/13/22 00:01, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 6/9/22 19:29, John Garry wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * This determines how many commands the HBA will set aside
>> + * for internal commands. This number will be added to
>> + * @can_queue to calcumate the maximum number of simultaneous
>
> s/calcumate/calculate
>
> But this is weird. For SATA, can_queue is 32. Having reserved commands,
> that number needs to stay the same. We cannot have more than 32 tags.
> I think keeping can_queue as the max queue depth with at most
> nr_reserved_cmds tags reserved is better.
>
>> + * commands sent to the host.
>> + */
>> + int nr_reserved_cmds;
+1 for Damien's request. I also prefer to keep can_queue as the maximum
queue depth, whether or not nr_reserved_cmds has been set.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists