From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: split scsi passthrough fields out of struct request V2 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:38:40 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1485365126-23210-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170127161114.GA501@kernel.dk> <20170127161718.GA16911@lst.de> <775aff8d-6bcc-9cc5-cfa3-dd1c157c95c5@fb.com> <20170127162316.GA17059@lst.de> <195e1638-7d85-0618-0101-5cfff34b91e9@fb.com> <20170127163450.GA17311@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170127163450.GA17311@lst.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, Junichi Nomura List-Id: dm-devel.ids On 01/27/2017 09:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:27:02AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Feel free to repost it, I have no problem rebasing that branch as it's >> standalone for now. > > Ok, I'll repost what I have right now, which is on top of a merge > of your block/for-4.11/next and your for-next from this morning > my time. Perfect. > Btw, I disagred with your patch to use op_is_flush in > generic_make_request_checks - given that we clear these flags just > below I think using the helper obsfucates what's really going on. Why? It's the exact same check. The ugly part is the fact that we strip the flags later on, imho. -- Jens Axboe From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:33437 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933408AbdA0Rdt (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:33:49 -0500 Subject: Re: split scsi passthrough fields out of struct request V2 To: Christoph Hellwig References: <1485365126-23210-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170127161114.GA501@kernel.dk> <20170127161718.GA16911@lst.de> <775aff8d-6bcc-9cc5-cfa3-dd1c157c95c5@fb.com> <20170127162316.GA17059@lst.de> <195e1638-7d85-0618-0101-5cfff34b91e9@fb.com> <20170127163450.GA17311@lst.de> CC: Mike Snitzer , Junichi Nomura , , , , From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:38:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170127163450.GA17311@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 01/27/2017 09:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:27:02AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Feel free to repost it, I have no problem rebasing that branch as it's >> standalone for now. > > Ok, I'll repost what I have right now, which is on top of a merge > of your block/for-4.11/next and your for-next from this morning > my time. Perfect. > Btw, I disagred with your patch to use op_is_flush in > generic_make_request_checks - given that we clear these flags just > below I think using the helper obsfucates what's really going on. Why? It's the exact same check. The ugly part is the fact that we strip the flags later on, imho. -- Jens Axboe