Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:09:16 +0200 | From | Marcin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.30 IDE 113 |
| |
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: >>> >>> >>>>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? > > > You look from the IDE perspective, I look from the interface > perspective. There's is no "eat one request" semantic of request_fn(), > in fact there's just the opposite. If you quit after having just > consumed one request, you must make sure to invoke request_fn _yourself_ > later on -- or use the recent blk_start/stop_queue helpers.
Yes of course I know that there is not "eat one request" semantic of request_fn(). However looking at the interface perspective (out of my small corner) I think the above is precisely what leads to ugly things (and I think you will agree that this is ugly) like calling do_ide_request() back out from ata_irq_handler() - shrug.
- 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/
| |