From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from esa2.hgst.iphmx.com ([68.232.143.124]:22569 "EHLO esa2.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753150AbdCNVWO (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:22:14 -0400 From: Bart Van Assche To: "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "target-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "sagi@grimberg.me" Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc 04/10] block: Add a non-selective polling interface Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:21:59 +0000 Message-ID: <1489526506.2676.13.camel@sandisk.com> References: <1489065402-14757-1-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> <1489065402-14757-5-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> <1489076712.2597.1.camel@sandisk.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 10:15 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > Additionally, I think making the hardware context an argument of this f= unction > > instead of using blk_mq_map_queue(q, smp_processor_id()) would make thi= s > > function much more versatile. >=20 > What do you mean? remember that the callers interface to the device is > a request queue, it doesn't even know if its a blk-mq device. Can you > explain in more details what you would like to see? Have you considered to make the CPU ID an argument instead of using the smp_processor_id() result? Bart.=