From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:34:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050419123436.GA2827@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4263CB26.2070609@gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 18 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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()?
#2 is the best, imho. We really want to maintain ordering on requeue
always, marking it softbarrier automatically in the block layer means
the io schedulers don't have to do anything specific to handle it.
I have no problem with removing the requeue stuff from
blk_insert_request(). That function is horribly weird as it is, it is
supposed to look generic but is really just a scsi special case.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-19 12:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20050417224101.GA2344@htj.dyndns.org>
[not found] ` <1113833744.4998.13.camel@mulgrave>
2005-04-18 14:58 ` Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets Tejun Heo
2005-04-19 12:34 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2005-04-19 14:18 ` James Bottomley
2005-04-19 14:30 ` Jens Axboe
2005-04-19 14:33 ` Jens Axboe
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=20050419123436.GA2827@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--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