[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed22e2ea-bf28-4eba-bfb1-afe9f79dc3b7@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 05:49:50 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, Qiang Ma <maqianga@...ontech.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, dwagner@...e.de, ming.lei@...hat.com, hare@...e.de
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Don't wait for completion of in-flight requests
On 11/26/24 4:21 AM, John Garry wrote:
> On 26/11/2024 11:50, Qiang Ma wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
>> index adee6f60c966..0a2d5d9327fc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
>> @@ -2065,7 +2065,7 @@ int scsi_mq_setup_tags(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
>> tag_set->queue_depth = shost->can_queue;
>> tag_set->cmd_size = cmd_size;
>> tag_set->numa_node = dev_to_node(shost->dma_dev);
>> - tag_set->flags = BLK_MQ_F_SHOULD_MERGE;
>> + tag_set->flags = BLK_MQ_F_SHOULD_MERGE | BLK_MQ_F_STACKING;
>
> This should not be set for all SCSI hosts. Some SCSI hosts rely on
> bf0beec0607d.
Are there any SCSI hosts for which it is safe to set this flag? To me
the above change looks like a hack that should not be merged at all. Did
I perhaps overlook something?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists