From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>
To: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>, Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>
Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"hare@suse.de" <hare@suse.de>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com"
<MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com>,
"martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
"axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Separate zone requests from medium access requests
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:16:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488298588.2370.1.camel@sandisk.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170228160259.GA22755@lst.de>
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 17:02 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I don't really like this too much - this is too many SCSI specifics
> for the block layer to care. Maybe using bios for the zone ops was a
> mistake after all, and we should just have operations in struct block_dev=
ice
> instead..
blk_rq_accesses_medium() has nothing to do with SCSI. It is a reintroductio=
n
of what REQ_TYPE_FS stood for before ZBC was introduced but with another na=
me.
BTW, I think that all blk_rq_is_passthrough() callers have to be reviewed t=
o
see whether or not !blk_rq_accesses_medium() is perhaps what was intended.
Bart.=
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>
To: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>, Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>
Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"hare@suse.de" <hare@suse.de>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com"
<MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com>,
"martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
"axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Separate zone requests from medium access requests
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:16:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488298588.2370.1.camel@sandisk.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170228160259.GA22755@lst.de>
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 17:02 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I don't really like this too much - this is too many SCSI specifics
> for the block layer to care. Maybe using bios for the zone ops was a
> mistake after all, and we should just have operations in struct block_device
> instead..
blk_rq_accesses_medium() has nothing to do with SCSI. It is a reintroduction
of what REQ_TYPE_FS stood for before ZBC was introduced but with another name.
BTW, I think that all blk_rq_is_passthrough() callers have to be reviewed to
see whether or not !blk_rq_accesses_medium() is perhaps what was intended.
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-28 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-28 10:25 [PATCH 0/3] Separate zone requests from medium access requests Damien Le Moal
2017-02-28 10:25 ` Damien Le Moal
2017-02-28 10:25 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: Introduce blk_rq_accesses_medium() Damien Le Moal
2017-02-28 10:25 ` Damien Le Moal
2017-02-28 10:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: Separate zone requests from medium access requests Damien Le Moal
2017-02-28 10:25 ` Damien Le Moal
2017-02-28 16:57 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-28 16:57 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-03-09 5:27 ` [lkp-robot] [block] 670fcc25d7: kernel_BUG_at_block/blk-core.c kernel test robot
2017-03-09 5:27 ` kernel test robot
2017-02-28 10:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] mpt3sas: Do not check resid for non medium access commands Damien Le Moal
2017-02-28 10:25 ` Damien Le Moal
2017-02-28 16:02 ` [PATCH 0/3] Separate zone requests from medium access requests Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-28 16:16 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2017-02-28 16:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-03-01 2:52 ` Martin K. Petersen
2017-03-01 3:02 ` Damien Le Moal
2017-03-01 3:02 ` Damien Le Moal
2017-03-01 3:21 ` Martin K. Petersen
2017-03-01 9:06 ` Damien Le Moal
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=1488298588.2370.1.camel@sandisk.com \
--to=bart.vanassche@sandisk.com \
--cc=Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com \
--cc=MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.