From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] dm: fix REQ_RAHEAD handling Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:07:32 +0000 Message-ID: <1495642051.2823.9.camel@sandisk.com> References: <20170518131812.22956-1-hch@lst.de> <20170518131812.22956-5-hch@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170518131812.22956-5-hch@lst.de> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <826E2D9636872F41BBBB0CD2610663E9@namprd04.prod.outlook.com> Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "hch@lst.de" , "axboe@kernel.dk" Cc: "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > A few (but not all) dm targets use a special EWOULDBLOCK error code for > failing REQ_RAHEAD requests that fail due to a lack of available resource= s. > But no one else knows about this magic code, and lower level drivers also > don't generate it when failing read-ahead requests for similar reasons. >=20 > So remove this special casing and ignore all additional error handling fo= r > REQ_RAHEAD - if this was a real underlying error we'd get a normal read > once the real read comes in. Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche = From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Bart Van Assche To: "hch@lst.de" , "axboe@kernel.dk" CC: "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] dm: fix REQ_RAHEAD handling Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:07:32 +0000 Message-ID: <1495642051.2823.9.camel@sandisk.com> References: <20170518131812.22956-1-hch@lst.de> <20170518131812.22956-5-hch@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20170518131812.22956-5-hch@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 15:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > A few (but not all) dm targets use a special EWOULDBLOCK error code for > failing REQ_RAHEAD requests that fail due to a lack of available resource= s. > But no one else knows about this magic code, and lower level drivers also > don't generate it when failing read-ahead requests for similar reasons. >=20 > So remove this special casing and ignore all additional error handling fo= r > REQ_RAHEAD - if this was a real underlying error we'd get a normal read > once the real read comes in. Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche =