From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ming.lei@redhat.com (Ming Lei) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:33:49 +0800 Subject: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5] blk-mq: introduce BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE In-Reply-To: References: <20180130142459.52668-1-snitzer@redhat.com> <43ac2314-c98d-bb76-0dfb-171d15cc5fd8@wdc.com> <7baf8e0f-7a15-4529-c32b-4ce0ee172598@kernel.dk> <1517368861.4421.2.camel@wdc.com> Message-ID: <20180131033348.GA9985@ming.t460p> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018@08:22:27PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/30/18 8:21 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-01-30@20:17 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> BLK_STS_RESOURCE should always be safe to return, and it should work > >> the same as STS_DEV_RESOURCE, except it may cause an extra queue > >> run. > >> > >> Well written drivers should use STS_DEV_RESOURCE where it makes > >> sense. > > > > Hello Jens, > > > > I would appreciate it if other names would be chosen than BLK_STS_RESOURCE > > and BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE, e.g. names that directly refer to the fact that > > one of the two status codes causes the queue to be rerun and the other not. > > I'm afraid that the currently chosen names will cause confusion. > > DEV_RESOURCE is pretty clear I think, but I agree that STS_RESOURCE > could perhaps be better. STS_SYSTEM_RESOURCE? It makes the distinction I guess it still can't cover all, for example, .queue_rq() may not submit rq to hardware successfully because of tansport busy, such FC,.. -- Ming