From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751304AbeB0FPX (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:15:23 -0500 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:32900 "EHLO userp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789AbeB0FPW (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:15:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: core: use blk_mq_requeue_request in __scsi_queue_insert To: Bart Van Assche , "jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "hch@lst.de" References: <1519631932-1730-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com> <1519700898.3120.3.camel@wdc.com> <3b6ca136-ba62-3eca-6eca-d191490b7754@oracle.com> <1519702875.3120.7.camel@wdc.com> <1519708355.3120.9.camel@wdc.com> From: "jianchao.wang" Message-ID: <478f40f1-d86c-ee5f-daaf-6332b67fe721@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:15:10 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1519708355.3120.9.camel@wdc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8816 signatures=668680 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=871 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1802270057 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Bart Thanks for your kindly response. On 02/27/2018 01:12 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 12:00 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote: >> On the other hand, this patch is to align the actions between blk-mq and block >> legacy code in __scsi_queue_insert. > > Hello Jianchao, > > Since the legacy SCSI core unpreps an reprepares a request when requeuing it I > think your patch does not align the blk-mq and legacy block layer actions but > instead makes the behavior of the two code paths different. > Can you share more details about this ? Thanks Jianchao