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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,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 42513C00A89 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 07:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DE0520780 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 07:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="G7PINwJ7" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7DE0520780 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=lUrambStYyDUwiTjQbc4qIMTFqaYdPiymSNB3NSo1PU=; b=G7PINwJ78yYmzh2TR3UTeVRNY LJ2x3LlQon1Wv7/zLw5nuEefmYCjAT7ClunI3av6IkKCE1tUIvt4I87qYcjywKwpM2G3ZC599+GCJ 3/n7Upyr7OPJlLAs6tX4g7QTOm6NoUziqC25Q4Sc58jUsoJxv542RSSDY/O279NGQRreeM06pOXMR kuSqKuX4GLlY5aY1JMtZTHDUOF6wzMeJestadxiHWDdsYqSF+zQzFAEpaayLKSXHhpRgMPE3H6s3C ZMOcN/hsa7tGctPfCJFWf8FJ7yuc37soBzDO6cqq1AxPGCQVr3XCHaEuGsO1ptExj0doLQXHUQRJD rhpiIjwog==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kaZhh-0003ET-Fb; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 07:29:05 +0000 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kaZhf-0003D6-7B for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 07:29:04 +0000 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id B9DD568B05; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:28:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:28:56 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 5/5] nvme: centralize setting req end_io_data Message-ID: <20201105072856.GA4540@lst.de> References: <20201104203736.62745-1-chaitanya.kulkarni@wdc.com> <20201104203736.62745-6-chaitanya.kulkarni@wdc.com> <66b805e8-9efe-8f47-b10a-1a8dd6505720@grimberg.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <66b805e8-9efe-8f47-b10a-1a8dd6505720@grimberg.me> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201105_022903_398201_6BD91344 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 13.49 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kbusch@kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Chaitanya Kulkarni , hch@lst.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 02:17:05PM -0800, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >> The host side code allocates the request in several places using >> nvme_alloc_request() and initialises the allocated request->end_io_data, >> which repeats the code and will have duplicate code in the future. >> >> Add an end_io_data request parameter which initializes the block >> layer request in nvme_alloc_request(), update the respective callers >> and remove the duplicate code. > > There are less callers that actually put something there so not sure > if this is an improvement.. The alloc signature is getting kinda bloated > now... Yes, I don't really see the point - the request is available to the caller, so they can trivially assign it. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvme mailing list Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme