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=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 EA954C433C1 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA69619BA for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:27:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231150AbhCWL1F (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:27:05 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:38293 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229879AbhCWL05 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:26:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1616498817; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rld1UL6tlVVUarBafZlqfVOIMz6Gjqc0bpXjGoeBHcQ=; b=EuOqD9CWOwA0txr5AXFCgxFg3I+z7oMeeve0mds2BBlNTdh5aO9QYdvNaxXDxmnTny4maT 9DaGqKT8kC4VmDFPZ/pXEbgPS8gjcg6IlG65ivRwO9ccjoIHLw5gCehFjMjwIPawpehi/h CG5u6qayiFhn1188HriPFFv8ralEBwc= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-8-kCUt2jZsOlihBKKPhoHb2g-1; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:26:53 -0400 X-MC-Unique: kCUt2jZsOlihBKKPhoHb2g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC09E80364C; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-13-171.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.13.171]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AC8563622; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:26:33 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Mike Snitzer Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Jeffle Xu , dm-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 05/13] block: add req flag of REQ_TAG Message-ID: References: <20210318164827.1481133-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20210318164827.1481133-6-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20210319173813.GC9938@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210319173813.GC9938@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:38:13PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18 2021 at 12:48pm -0400, > Ming Lei wrote: > > > Add one req flag REQ_TAG which will be used in the following patch for > > supporting bio based IO polling. > > "REQ_TAG" is so generic yet is used in such a specific way (to mark an > FS bio as having polling context) > > I don't have a great suggestion for a better name, just seems "REQ_TAG" > is lacking... (especially given the potential for confusion due to > blk-mq's notion of "tag"). > > REQ_FS? REQ_FS_CTX? REQ_POLL? REQ_POLL_CTX? REQ_NAMING_IS_HARD :) > Maybe REQ_POLL_CTX is better, it is just for marking bios: 1) which need to be polled in this context 2) which can be polled in this context -- Ming