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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA3BBC433EF for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 17:11:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=g9hgt2DKcIwZaHcOkpIPEINB2X8Tb/KFaQOpOROejmM=; b=tWd99GeBSPEfS+4NTLhBPCdnd8 7C3CH9M1I+iEKxMQyavEq348pYMv9pkBRZRAA7PwLtf8UTj5+L0B1gNr0ROZxrztLD9Xo/g7d6h71 Lxb4Fsi3ZciSZmHUkXKpJ3kh3+AP3BwvbREhm1UPklBoJhbkzWzX03ZcP7HOYMz4aNPfljXAAZW2c Yrc7UTwGaaUZc5csQf6dkzlpw3RLLj5ubU3Mu2e00HTMCx1re2PdTmViyjF4vy+j/w4c5C9U8HCD1 xGLgXTy3VJ/kDMOs38OItxa3vtbRdfV2gLAC//tgvX92sVr2D95OaXhjxTyMELHMEom8N3KZzr6tm ETpfmFYQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1negWh-001uXd-A6; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 17:11:31 +0000 Received: from out1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:863f::]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1negWd-001uVN-0M for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 17:11:29 +0000 Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1649869883; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=g9hgt2DKcIwZaHcOkpIPEINB2X8Tb/KFaQOpOROejmM=; b=g/9TbwbIN93uxApyXF8BBEkQ1/lTKyyy4/IzfIxd429u+TEuLs16VwniJNRczAnfLyE/F+ 8/UOAh8y+L7RtsZ+OswYi/1qRRCzOShwzx8zYVX3ROnvjEEp+PFzoGdmL6qXgZYW0kRNGg G+axaF90C6UfYue6h1ABkudSLwScFqE= Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:11:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme-core: mark internal passthru req REQ_QUIET Content-Language: en-US To: Keith Busch Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chaitanya Kulkarni , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, sagi@grimberg.me References: <20220411031249.5158-1-kch@nvidia.com> <20220411031249.5158-4-kch@nvidia.com> <20220413165238.GA31786@lst.de> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Jonathan Derrick In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: linux.dev X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220413_101127_641927_90D52812 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 14.27 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 4/13/2022 11:09 AM, Keith Busch wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:57:19AM -0600, Jonathan Derrick wrote: >> >> >> On 4/13/2022 10:52 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:49:33AM -0600, Jonathan Derrick wrote: >>>>> + req->rq_flags |= RQF_QUIET; >>>> Any reason to not make it a part of flags in the argument list and let the >>>> block layer build the req with it? >>>> >>>> eg: >>>> flags |= REQ_QUIET; >>> >>> Because there is not REQ_QUIET, just RQF_QUIET and BIO_QUIET, and their >>> relation isn't quite as straightforward as it seems. >> >> Well let's suppose I had written RQF_QUIET instead of the non-existent >> REQ_QUIET > > The "flags" value passed to blk_mq_alloc_request() is not the same as the > values for rq_flags, though. > > I guess you could add a new allocation flag, maybe called something like > BLK_MQ_REQ_QUIET to tell the block layer to set RQF_QUIET. That is similiar to > how BLK_MQ_REQ_PM is used for RQF_PM, but I'm not sure we want to add another > 'if' check in the fast path. Fair enough