public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
	SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 08/08] scsi: fix hot unplug sequence
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:43:42 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4244860E.5090800@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1111778388.5692.38.camel@mulgrave>


 Hello, James.

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:38 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
>> We have users of scsi_do_req() other than scsi_wait_req() and they
>>use different done() functions to do different things.  I've checked
>>other done functions and none uses contents inside the passed
>>scsi_cmnd, so using a dummy command should be okay with them.  Am I
>>missing something here?
> 
> 
> Well ... the other users are supposed to be going away.  They're
> actually all coded wrongly in some way or other ... perhaps I should
> speed up the process.

 Sounds great.  :-)

>> Oh, and I would really appreciate if you can fill me in / give a
>>pointer about the scsi_request/scsi_cmnd distinction.
> 
> The block layer speaks in terms of requests and the scsi layers in terms
> of commands.  The scsi_request_fn() actually associates a request with a
> command.  However, since SCSI uses the block layer for queueing, all the
> internal scsi command submit paths have to use requests.  This is what a
> scsi_request is.  The reason for the special casing is that we can't use
> the normal REQ_CMD or REQ_BLOCK_PC paths because they need ULD
> initialisation and back end processing.

 What I meant was we could just use scsi_cmnd instead of scsi_request
for commands.  Currently, we do the following for special commands.

 1. Allocate scsi_request and request (two are linked)
 2. Initialize scsi_request as needed
 3. queue the request
 4. the request is dispatched
 5. scsi_cmnd is initialized from scsi_request
 6. scsi_cmnd is executed
 7. result code and sense copied back to scsi_request
 8. request is completed

 Instead, we can

 1. Allocate scsi_cmnd and request (two are linked)
 2. Initialize scsi_cmnd as needed
 3. queue the request
 4. the request is dispatched
 5. scsi_cmnd is executed
 6. request is completed

 As the latter seemed more straight-forward to me, I was wondering if
there were reasons that I wasn't aware of.

 Thanks.

-- 
tejun


  reply	other threads:[~2005-03-25 21:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-03-23  2:14 [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 00/08] scsi: small fixes & cleanups Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 01/08] scsi: remove unused bounce-buffer release path Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:07   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  6:08     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23 15:27       ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 02/08] scsi: don't use blk_insert_request() for requeueing Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 03/08] scsi: remove unused scsi_cmnd->internal_timeout field Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 04/08] scsi: remove meaningless volatile qualifiers from structure definitions Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:15   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  4:22     ` Jeff Garzik
2005-03-23  5:28       ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23 15:16       ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 05/08] scsi: remove a timer race from scsi_queue_insert() and cleanup timer Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 06/08] scsi: remove meaningless scsi_cmnd->serial_number_at_timeout field Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 07/08] scsi: remove bogus {get|put}_device() calls Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:15   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  9:13     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-29 17:02       ` Patrick Mansfield
2005-03-23  2:14 ` [PATCH scsi-misc-2.6 08/08] scsi: fix hot unplug sequence Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  4:08   ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23  4:50     ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-23  7:19       ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-23 15:20         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23 15:25           ` Jens Axboe
2005-03-25  0:45             ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25  3:15               ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-25  5:02                 ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25  5:38                   ` Tejun Heo
2005-03-25 19:19                     ` James Bottomley
2005-03-25 21:43                       ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2005-03-25 22:49                         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-26  7:27                       ` Kai Makisara
2005-03-26 14:48                         ` James Bottomley
2005-03-23 15:12       ` James Bottomley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4244860E.5090800@gmail.com \
    --to=htejun@gmail.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox