From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753401AbbEKLpA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 11 May 2015 07:45:00 -0400
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:40051 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751058AbbEKLo5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 May 2015 07:44:57 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:44:56 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stefan Haberland <stefan.haberland@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Refine blk_abort_request() documentation
Message-ID: <20150511114456.GA5097@lst.de>
References: <55509060.4010601@sandisk.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55509060.4010601@sandisk.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:20:00PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Document when it is safe to call this function for blk-mq queues.

Maybe we should move the queue_lock acquisition into blk_abort_request
for the !blk-mq case?  libata and libsas already take it just around the
call, an the usage in the dasd driver looks like it only needs
the queue_lock for the blk_abort_request call as well.