From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Linton Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_execute_async() should add to the tail of the queue Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:50:51 -0600 Message-ID: <4589CC5B.9090704@greshamstorage.com> References: <20061219083507.GA20847@localdomain> <1166522613.3365.1198.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <4587C04E.10307@monatomic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from austin.greshamstorage.com ([216.143.252.250]:2555 "EHLO austin.greshamstorage.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161050AbWLUAGU (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:06:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4587C04E.10307@monatomic.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Aloni Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Linux Kernel List , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Christie > So instead of adding a parameter, we can make scsi_execute_async() > decide for itself based on the SCSI command, with read/write I/Os > taking the lowest priority. This seems like a bad idea, I can come up with a number of cases where the priority of a request would better be optimized by a higher level subsystem, rather than a simple prioritization based on the command type. The original suggestion to provide both head and tail insertion options seems like the obvious solution, short of a full priority queuing system.