From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757200AbaIIPUd (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:20:33 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:47129 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750816AbaIIPUb (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 11:20:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:20:28 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ming Lei Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] block: per-distpatch_queue flush machinery Message-ID: <20140909152028.GA13699@lst.de> References: <1410267949-21904-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1410267949-21904-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Ming, thanks for doing this work! I've only taken a very cursory look at the series and I like most of it. But can you explain why you're not simply incrementing the number of allocated requests in the blk-mq request allocation code instead of allocating the flush request separately in the last patch? (A more throughout review will follow too)