From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
Cc: Marcin Dalecki <dalecki@evision.ag>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:55:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020729075520.C4445@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020729073746.A4437@suse.de>
On Mon, Jul 29 2002, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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.
Here's the patch to fix it, btw. Linus, please apply.
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet 1.509 -> 1.510
# drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 1.96 -> 1.97
# drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c 1.29 -> 1.30
#
# The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
# --------------------------------------------
# 02/07/29 axboe@burns.home.kernel.dk 1.510
# undo REQ_QUEUED breakage in recent blk_insert_request() introduction
# --------------------------------------------
#
diff -Nru a/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c b/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c
--- a/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c Mon Jul 29 07:53:43 2002
+++ b/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c Mon Jul 29 07:53:43 2002
@@ -1253,7 +1253,7 @@
* host that is unable to accept a particular command.
*/
void blk_insert_request(request_queue_t *q, struct request *rq,
- int at_head, void *data)
+ int at_head, void *data)
{
unsigned long flags;
@@ -1262,15 +1262,11 @@
* must not attempt merges on this) and that it acts as a soft
* barrier
*/
- rq->flags &= REQ_QUEUED;
rq->flags |= REQ_SPECIAL | REQ_BARRIER;
rq->special = data;
spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
- /* If command is tagged, release the tag */
- if(blk_rq_tagged(rq))
- blk_queue_end_tag(q, rq);
_elv_add_request(q, rq, !at_head, 0);
q->request_fn(q);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
diff -Nru a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c Mon Jul 29 07:53:43 2002
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c Mon Jul 29 07:53:43 2002
@@ -74,6 +74,9 @@
{
request_queue_t *q = &SCpnt->device->request_queue;
+ if (blk_rq_tagged(SCpnt->request))
+ blk_queue_end_tag(q, SCpnt->request);
+
blk_insert_request(q, SCpnt->request, at_head, SCpnt);
return 0;
}
@@ -101,6 +104,9 @@
int scsi_insert_special_req(Scsi_Request * SRpnt, int at_head)
{
request_queue_t *q = &SRpnt->sr_device->request_queue;
+
+ if (blk_rq_tagged(SRpnt->sr_request))
+ blk_queue_end_tag(q, SRpnt->sr_request);
blk_insert_request(q, SRpnt->sr_request, at_head, SRpnt);
return 0;
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-29 5:51 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
2002-07-29 5:55 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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=20020729075520.C4445@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=dalecki@evision.ag \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/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