![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:27 [W:0.031 / U:0.500 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||