From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB691C433E0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6982075A for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726860AbgE2M0y (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 08:26:54 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:32774 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726052AbgE2M0x (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 08:26:53 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id F0F8468B02; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:26:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:26:50 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Keith Busch Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] blk-mq: export __blk_mq_complete_request Message-ID: <20200529122650.GA28107@lst.de> References: <20200528151931.3501506-1-kbusch@kernel.org> <20200528164256.GA25651@lst.de> <20200528181807.GA3504306@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdl.wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200528181807.GA3504306@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdl.wdc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:18:07AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:42:56PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I think this needs a better name. > > blk_mq_do_complete_req()? do isn't exactly descriptive, is it? blk_mq_force_complete_request maybe? And yes, I think for 5.9 we need to lift the error injection into the callers, this is a mess..