From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: Proposed changes to generic blk tag for use in SCSI (1/3) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:45:06 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020611144506.GI1117@suse.de> References: <20020611055014.GA1117@suse.de> <200206111429.g5BET8K02052@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200206111429.g5BET8K02052@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 11 2002, James Bottomley wrote: > axboe@suse.de said: > > Ehm it's already there, one could argue that it's pretty core > > functionality for this type of stuff :-). It's called > > blk_queue_get_tag(q, tag), and it's in blkdev.h. However, I agree that > > we should just move it into ll_rw_blk.c. That gets better documented > > as well. Could you redo that part? > > I guessed it must be. I grepped the IDE tree looking for anything with `get' > or `find' in it, but came up empty. It's actually called > blk_queue_tag_request(), which is why I didn't find it. > > Do you want me to keep this name if I move it? Nah the name sucks, you see I didn't even remember it myself either. Why not just change the name to something sane, like blk_queue_get_tag() or blk_queue_find_tag(). I think yours (the latter) describes it best. Just ide accordingly as well, that's the sole current user. > axboe@suse.de said: > > I completely agree with this, blk_queue_start_tag() should not need to > > know about these things so just checking if the request is already > > marked tagged is fine with me. But please make that a warning, like > > Actually, I think it should be a BUG(). By the time a tagged request > comes in to blk_queue_start_tag, we must already have corrupted the > lists since we use the same list element (req->queuelist) to queue on > both the tag queue and the request queue. Agree, make it a BUG_ON() or something. > > And also _please_ fix the comment about REQ_CMD and not just the code, > > it's doesn't stand anymore. > > Will do...I didn't see much point altering the comment in the > prototype until there was agreement that it was OK to do it this way. Fine. -- Jens Axboe