From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932081Ab3EXHnu (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 03:43:50 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]:46355 "EHLO mail-ee0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759496Ab3EXHns (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 03:43:48 -0400 Message-ID: <519F1A28.6080303@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:43:36 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Bottomley CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, FUJITA Tomonori , Doug Gilbert , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 part1 1/4] sg_io: pass request_queue to blk_verify_command References: <1369317503-4095-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1369317503-4095-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1369380965.1945.10.camel@dabdike> In-Reply-To: <1369380965.1945.10.camel@dabdike> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Il 24/05/2013 09:36, James Bottomley ha scritto: > On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 15:58 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Adjust the blk_verify_command function to let it look at per-queue >> data. This will be done in the next patch. > > This is not a bug fix. This is an enabler for your complex and to my > mind dubious rework of the SG_IO command filter. I'm running out of > ways to say please don't mix bug fixes with features, because this > redesignating of the original patch set as part 1 and parts 2,3 doesn't > satisfy the requirement. I made it part 1/2/3 because parts 2/3 depend on part 1. It makes dependency tracking easier, at least in my mind. If you have another solution that does not require passing request_queue to blk_verify_command, I'm all ears. > Does anyone in the real world actually care about this bug? Yes, or I would move on and not waste so much time on this. Paolo > because if > not perhaps we can just remove the confusion and consider this as a > feature set. If there's someone who actually cares, please lets just do > the bug fix first and argue about the feature later. > > James > >