Re: [PATCH] nvme-core: mark passthru requests RQF_QUIET flag

[Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>]

On 4/6/22 09:52, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 09:41:09AM -0700, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>> @@ -370,7 +370,8 @@ static inline void nvme_end_req(struct request *req)
>>   {
>>   	blk_status_t status = nvme_error_status(nvme_req(req)->status);
>>   
>> -	if (unlikely(nvme_req(req)->status != NVME_SC_SUCCESS))
>> +	if (unlikely(nvme_req(req)->status != NVME_SC_SUCCESS &&
>> +		    !(req->rq_flags & RQF_QUIET)))
>>   		nvme_log_error(req);
>>   	nvme_end_req_zoned(req);
>>   	nvme_trace_bio_complete(req);
>> @@ -651,6 +652,7 @@ void nvme_init_request(struct request *req, struct nvme_command *cmd)
>>   	cmd->common.flags &= ~NVME_CMD_SGL_ALL;
>>   
>>   	req->cmd_flags |= REQ_FAILFAST_DRIVER;
>> +	req->rq_flags |= RQF_QUIET;
> 
> This defeats the admin error logging logic since every admin command comes
> through here. If you're sure we should do this, then I suppose you can remove
> that unreachable code.

If you point out the unreachable code that will be great,
I'll keep looking meanwhile...

-ck