From: Marcin Dalecki <dalecki@evision.ag>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: martin@dalecki.de, Petr Vandrovec <VANDROVE@vc.cvut.cz>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.30 IDE 113
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:52:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D4FAA87.8040303@evision.ag> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20020806105450.GD1323@suse.de
Uz.ytkownik Jens Axboe napisa?:
> On Tue, Aug 06 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>
>>Uz.ytkownik Jens Axboe napisa?:
>>
>>>On Tue, Aug 06 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>device not per channel! If q->request_fn would properly return the
>>>>error count instead of void, we could even get rid ot the
>>>>checking for rq->errors after finishment... But well that's
>>>>entierly different story.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's nonsense! What exactly would you return from a request_fn after
>>>having queued, eg, 20 commands? Error count is per request, anything
>>>else would be stupid.
>>
>>Returning the error count in the case q->request_fn is called for
>>a self submitted request like for example REQ_SPECIAL would be handy and
>>well defined. For the cumulative case it would of course make sense to
>>return the cumulative error count. Tough not very meaningfull, it would
>>indicate the occurrence of the error very fine.
>
>
> It's much nicer to maintain a sane API that doesn't depend on stuff like
> the above. Cumulative error count, come on, you can't possibly be
> serious?!
Hey don't get me wrong - I *do not* suggest adding it becouse I don't
think we are going to change the "eat as many as possible requests"
instead of "eat one request" semantics of the q->reuqest_fn().
OK?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-06 10:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-06 10:16 [PATCH] 2.5.30 IDE 113 Petr Vandrovec
2002-08-06 10:20 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-08-06 10:42 ` Jens Axboe
2002-08-06 10:43 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-08-06 10:54 ` Jens Axboe
2002-08-06 10:52 ` Marcin Dalecki [this message]
2002-08-06 11:05 ` Jens Axboe
2002-08-06 11:09 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-08-06 11:17 ` Jens Axboe
2002-08-06 11:57 ` Marcin Dalecki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-08-06 10:35 Petr Vandrovec
2002-08-06 10:44 ` Jens Axboe
2002-08-06 10:47 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-08-06 11:03 ` Jens Axboe
2002-08-06 11:04 ` Marcin Dalecki
2002-08-06 11:12 ` Jens Axboe
2002-08-06 9:02 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=3D4FAA87.8040303@evision.ag \
--to=dalecki@evision.ag \
--cc=VANDROVE@vc.cvut.cz \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin@dalecki.de \
--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