All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
	SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 08/08] scsi: fix hot unplug sequence
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:43:42 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4244860E.5090800@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1111778388.5692.38.camel@mulgrave>


 Hello, James.

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:38 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
>> We have users of scsi_do_req() other than scsi_wait_req() and they
>>use different done() functions to do different things.  I've checked
>>other done functions and none uses contents inside the passed
>>scsi_cmnd, so using a dummy command should be okay with them.  Am I
>>missing something here?
> 
> 
> Well ... the other users are supposed to be going away.  They're
> actually all coded wrongly in some way or other ... perhaps I should
> speed up the process.

 Sounds great.  :-)

>> Oh, and I would really appreciate if you can fill me in / give a
>>pointer about the scsi_request/scsi_cmnd distinction.
> 
> The block layer speaks in terms of requests and the scsi layers in terms
> of commands.  The scsi_request_fn() actually associates a request with a
> command.  However, since SCSI uses the block layer for queueing, all the
> internal scsi command submit paths have to use requests.  This is what a
> scsi_request is.  The reason for the special casing is that we can't use
> the normal REQ_CMD or REQ_BLOCK_PC paths because they need ULD
> initialisation and back end processing.

 What I meant was we could just use scsi_cmnd instead of scsi_request
for commands.  Currently, we do the following for special commands.

 1. Allocate scsi_request and request (two are linked)
 2. Initialize scsi_request as needed
 3. queue the request
 4. the request is dispatched
 5. scsi_cmnd is initialized from scsi_request
 6. scsi_cmnd is executed
 7. result code and sense copied back to scsi_request
 8. request is completed

 Instead, we can

 1. Allocate scsi_cmnd and request (two are linked)
 2. Initialize scsi_cmnd as needed
 3. queue the request
 4. the request is dispatched
 5. scsi_cmnd is executed
 6. request is completed

 As the latter seemed more straight-forward to me, I was wondering if
there were reasons that I wasn't aware of.

 Thanks.

-- 
tejun


  reply	other threads:[~2005-03-25 21:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-03-23  2:14 [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 00/08] scsi: small fixes & cleanups Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 01/08] scsi: remove unused bounce-buffer release path Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:07   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  6:08     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23 15:27       ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 02/08] scsi: don't use blk_insert_request() for requeueing Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 03/08] scsi: remove unused scsi_cmnd->internal_timeout field Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 04/08] scsi: remove meaningless volatile qualifiers from structure definitions Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:15   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  4:22     ` Jeff Garzik
2005-03-23  5:28       ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23 15:16       ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 05/08] scsi: remove a timer race from scsi_queue_insert() and cleanup timer Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 06/08] scsi: remove meaningless scsi_cmnd->serial_number_at_timeout field Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 07/08] scsi: remove bogus {get|put}_device() calls Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:15   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  9:13     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-29 17:02       ` Patrick Mansfield
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 08/08] scsi: fix hot unplug sequence Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:08   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  4:50     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  7:19       ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-23 15:20         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23 15:25           ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-25  0:45             ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25  3:15               ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-25  5:02                 ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25  5:38                   ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-25 19:19                     ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25 21:43                       ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2005-03-25 22:49                         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-26  7:27                       ` Kai Makisara
2005-03-26 14:48                         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23 15:12       ` James Bottomley

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=4244860E.5090800@gmail.com \
    --to=htejun@gmail.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@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 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.