From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
Cc: Marcin Dalecki <dalecki@evision.ag>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:37:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020729073746.A4437@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200207282013.g6SKDjg02769@localhost.localdomain>
On Sun, Jul 28 2002, James Bottomley wrote:
> > You are right the
> > > rq->flags &= REQ_QUEUED;
> > > and the
> > > if (blk_rq_tagged(rq))
> > blk_queue_end_tag(q, rq);
> > > should be just removed and things are fine.
> > They only survive becouse they don't provide a tag for the request in
> > first place.
> > > Thanks for pointing it out.
>
>
> Please don't remove this.
>
> insert_special isn't just used to start new requests, it's also used to queue
> incoming requests that cannot be processed by the device (host adapter,
> queue_full etc.).
>
> In this latter case, the tag is already begun, so it needs to go back with
> end_tag (we start a new tag when the device begins processing again).
>
> I own up to introducing the &= REQ_QUEUED rubbish---I was just keeping the
> original placement of the flag clearing code, but now we need to preserve
> whether the request was queued or not for the blk_rq_tagged check. On
> reflection it would have been better just to set the flags to REQ_SPECIAL |
> REQ_BARRIER after the end tag code.
I think you are missing the point. The stuff should not be in the
_generic_ blk_insert_request(). As I posted in my first reply to Martin,
SCSI needs to clear the tag before calling blk_insert_request() if it
needs to.
> axboe@suse.de said:
> > But the crap still got merged, sigh... Yet again an excellent point of
> > why stuff like this should go through the maintainer. Apparently Linus
> > blindly applies this stuff.
>
> Hmm, well I sent it to you and you are the Maintainer.
I've never seen it?!
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-29 5:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-28 20:13 [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction James Bottomley
2002-07-29 5:37 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2002-07-29 5:55 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 6:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 6:34 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 6:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 10:43 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 13:44 ` James Bottomley
2002-07-29 13:50 ` Marcin Dalecki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-07-28 23:59 Andries.Brouwer
2002-07-29 0:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 0:52 ` Dave Jones
2002-07-30 0:50 ` Rob Landley
2002-07-24 21:13 Linux-2.5.28 Linus Torvalds
2002-07-26 6:03 ` [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction Marcin Dalecki
2002-07-26 14:38 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-26 15:09 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-07-28 19:25 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-28 23:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 5:39 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 5:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-29 10:24 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-07-29 10:44 ` Jens Axboe
2002-07-29 11:05 ` Marcin Dalecki
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=20020729073746.A4437@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=dalecki@evision.ag \
--cc=linux-kernel@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