From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: merez@codeaurora.org
Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
DOCUMENTATION <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] block: Add test-iosched scheduler
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:13:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x498vfsi8zp.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f9b014a8098cce8e4bac8d333d7101c0.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org> (merez@codeaurora.org's message of "Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:58:44 -0700 (PDT)")
merez@codeaurora.org writes:
> On Tue, June 12, 2012 7:09 am, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Maya Erez <merez@codeaurora.org> writes:
>>
>>> The test scheduler allows testing a block device by dispatching
>>> specific requests according to the test case and declare PASS/FAIL
>>> according to the requests completion error code
>>
>> What sort of tests have you written that make use of this
>> infrastructure?
>>
>>> @@ -1072,8 +1072,6 @@ struct request *blk_get_request(struct
>>> request_queue *q, int rw, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>>> {
>>> struct request *rq;
>>>
>>> - BUG_ON(rw != READ && rw != WRITE);
>>> -
>>
>> Please explain this.
> get_request and get_request_wait, called by blk_get_request, expects to
> get the REQ_SYNC flag in addition to the read/write flag. Moreover, it
> uses the REQ_SYNC flag in its algorithm decision making.
> However blk_get_request expects to get a Boolean to indicate only
> read/write flag and cannot handle the REQ_SYNC flag.
Right, so why is it okay to change this? Right now, blk_get_request is
used for block special requests. There is no sense of sync vs. async
for such requests (that's an fs request notion). Perhaps you're calling
the wrong function?
Cheers,
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-12 20:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-12 9:06 [PATCH v4 0/1] block: Add test-iosched scheduler Maya Erez
2012-06-12 9:06 ` [PATCH v4 1/1] " Maya Erez
2012-06-12 14:09 ` Jeff Moyer
2012-06-12 19:58 ` merez
2012-06-12 20:13 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2012-06-13 6:22 ` merez
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=x498vfsi8zp.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=merez@codeaurora.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).