From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, Marcin Dalecki <dalecki@evision.ag>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:13:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200207282013.g6SKDjg02769@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
> You are right the
> > rq->flags &= REQ_QUEUED;
> > and the
> > if (blk_rq_tagged(rq))
> blk_queue_end_tag(q, rq);
> > should be just removed and things are fine.
> They only survive becouse they don't provide a tag for the request in
> first place.
> > Thanks for pointing it out.
Please don't remove this.
insert_special isn't just used to start new requests, it's also used to queue
incoming requests that cannot be processed by the device (host adapter,
queue_full etc.).
In this latter case, the tag is already begun, so it needs to go back with
end_tag (we start a new tag when the device begins processing again).
I own up to introducing the &= REQ_QUEUED rubbish---I was just keeping the
original placement of the flag clearing code, but now we need to preserve
whether the request was queued or not for the blk_rq_tagged check. On
reflection it would have been better just to set the flags to REQ_SPECIAL |
REQ_BARRIER after the end tag code.
axboe@suse.de said:
> But the crap still got merged, sigh... Yet again an excellent point of
> why stuff like this should go through the maintainer. Apparently Linus
> blindly applies this stuff.
Hmm, well I sent it to you and you are the Maintainer.
James
P.S. I just got back into the US from a long flight, I'll give this more
mature reflection tomorrow.
next reply other threads:[~2002-07-28 20:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-28 20:13 James Bottomley [this message]
2002-07-29 5:37 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 5:55 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 6:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 6:34 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 6:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 10:43 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 13:44 ` James Bottomley
2002-07-29 13:50 ` Marcin Dalecki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-07-28 23:59 Andries.Brouwer
2002-07-29 0:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 0:52 ` Dave Jones
2002-07-30 0:50 ` Rob Landley
2002-07-24 21:13 Linux-2.5.28 Linus Torvalds
2002-07-26 6:03 ` [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction Marcin Dalecki
2002-07-26 14:38 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-26 15:09 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-07-28 19:25 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-28 23:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 5:39 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 5:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 10:24 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-07-29 10:44 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 11:05 ` Marcin Dalecki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200207282013.g6SKDjg02769@localhost.localdomain \
--to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=dalecki@evision.ag \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®