From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:58:46 +0900 Message-ID: <4263CB26.2070609@gmail.com> References: <20050417224101.GA2344@htj.dyndns.org> <1113833744.4998.13.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.199]:47364 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262090AbVDRO66 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:58:58 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id j1so1006718rnf for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:58:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1113833744.4998.13.camel@mulgrave> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley , Jens Axboe , SCSI Mailing List , lkml Hello, James. Hello, Jens. James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 07:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> As it's been almost a week since I posted scsi midlayer patchsets and >>haven't heard anything yet, I've been wondering what's going on. Are >>they under review or all dropped? If they are dropped, can you please >>tell me why they are dropped? > > > I have about four of them in the scsi-misc-2.6 tree, if you look. > > Your request path rewrite I already gave you feedback that I didn't want > REQ_SOFTBARRIER in scsi ... it needs to be in the block submit API for > special requests. Also, you have a patch for block in this code so I > can't apply it without an ack from Jens. And all the rest of your > patches depend on this one. This thread started as an private inquiry to James regarding the status of four patchsets I posted about a week ago. I'm replying publicly as I think we can use some discussion. The four patchsets are... (in the following order) * timer updates * REQ_SPECIAL/REQ_SOFTBARRIER usage change * scsi_request_fn reimpl * requeue path consolidation. Accepted patches are * scsi_cmnd->internal_timeout kill * scsi_cmnd->serial_number_at_timeout * remove volatile * scsi_send_eh_cmnd() clean up All four accepted patches are not included in any of above patchsets and the timer update patchset doesn't depend on REQ_SPECIAL/REQ_SOFTBARRIER usage change patchset, so please review the timer update patchset. And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can be removed from SCSI midlayer, do you agree to change REQ_SPECIAL to mean special requests? If so, I have three proposals. * move REQ_SOFTBARRIER setting to right after the allocation of scsi_cmnd in scsi_prep_fn(). This will be the only place where REQ_SOFTBARRIER is used in SCSI midlayer, making it less pervasive. * Or, make another API which sets REQ_SOFTBARRIER on requeue. maybe blk_requeue_ordered_request()? * Or, make blk_insert_request() not set REQ_SPECIAL on requeue. IMHO, this is a bit too subtle. I like #1 or #2. Jens, what do you think? Do you agree to remove requeue feature from blk_insert_request()? Thanks a lot. :-) -- tejun