From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:60531 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751468AbdB0TyZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:54:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: make blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() allocate a scheduler request To: Sagi Grimberg , Omar Sandoval References: <6137d2c6-816e-83b2-103c-cdf0840f49fd@fb.com> <20170227183021.GG10715@vader> <5d9bc14d-9a90-8915-f538-f61452420677@fb.com> <719e3d15-73e2-0b11-e205-e733b882c2ae@grimberg.me> CC: , From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <9314f153-0264-2efb-fe52-a7823ce18051@fb.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:44:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <719e3d15-73e2-0b11-e205-e733b882c2ae@grimberg.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 02/27/2017 11:41 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >>>>> blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() allocates a driver request directly, unlike >>>>> its blk_mq_alloc_request() counterpart. It also crashes because it >>>>> doesn't update the tags->rqs map. >>>>> >>>>> Fix it by making it allocate a scheduler request. >>>> >>>> All three look good to me. Would you mind respinning #1, it doesn't >>>> apply on top of the reserved tag patch. >>> >>> Yup, I had those based on Sagi's original patches for some reason. I >>> fat-fingered send-email, sent as a reply to the original patch 1 instead >>> of this email. >> >> I got it, applied all 3, thanks Omar! > > FWIW, you can add my: > > Tested-by: Sagi Grimberg Done, I fixed up your typo, though :-) > Although I didn't try to trigger reserved vs. normal tag > competition which will never ever happen for nvmf btw, but > I assume it can happen in drivers who use reserved for error > handling. As long as we verify they work independently, there should not be a need to check that edge case separately. We should have identical behavior there now to previously. -- Jens Axboe