From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 03/05] scsi: make scsi_queue_insert() use blk_requeue_request() Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:45:28 -0400 Message-ID: <1114087528.5054.2.camel@mulgrave> References: <20050419231435.D85F89C0@htj.dyndns.org> <20050419231435.329FA30B@htj.dyndns.org> <1114039446.5933.17.camel@mulgrave> <20050421061026.GE9371@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:54448 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261334AbVDUMph (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:45:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20050421061026.GE9371@suse.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Tejun Heo , Christoph Hellwig , SCSI Mailing List , Linux Kernel On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 08:10 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > I wondered about this action recently myself. What is the point in > requeueing this request, only to call scsi_run_queue() -> > blk_run_queue() -> issue same request. If the point really is to reissue > the request immediately, I can think of many ways more efficient than > this :-) Well ... that's because the logic that decides whether to plug the queue or simply exit is in the scsi_request_fn(). That's what the comment is about. We could abstract the check into a function, but (unless you have any suggestions on rewording it) I thought the comment made what was going on reasonably clear. James