From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pete Zaitcev Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:03 -0800 Message-ID: <20071211154803.58beb681.zaitcev@redhat.com> References: <20071211.174647.75757994.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071211.174647.75757994.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kiyoshi Ueda Cc: jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com, zaitcev@redhat.com List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:46:47 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda wrote: > if (scsi_status == 0) { > - uptodate = 1; > + error = 0; > } else { > - uptodate = 0; > + error = -EIO; > rq->errors = scsi_status; > } > - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors); > - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate); > + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq))) > + BUG(); Acked-by: Pete Zaitcev I follow the discussion, actually, and wanted to ask someone to look closer if it's appropriate to use __blk_end_request() here. My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? If not, and the above is sufficient, why have blk_end_request at all? -- Pete