Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: ensure nvme_timeout complete before initializing procedure | From | "jianchao.wang" <> | Date | Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:43:04 +0800 |
| |
Hi Christoph and Keith
Really sorry for this.
On 01/23/2018 05:54 AM, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:14:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> Link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lkml.org_lkml_2018_1_19_68&d=DwICAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=7WdAxUBeiTUTCy8v-7zXyr4qk7sx26ATvfo6QSTvZyQ&m=xJVh7u7o8UBQko2JJRmxqldiuMhaIosNJN8WTkhAF98&s=uk1TvCGpW928A4GMJh1tvxNvPiVfgJvFjjPn69f8fNA&e= >>> Suggested-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com> >> >> Why does this have a signoff from Keith? > The the nvme_sync_queues is from Keith in the mail thread, so I added this. I will discard it and just reserve "suggested-by" later.
> Right, I hadn't signed off that. I just trying to get feeback if > someting like that was closing the theoretical gap, which it does.
Yes.
> > I actually have something similar in my patch queue I was about to send > around this area, though. I don't like having the IO path take on the > error handling, and I think ending unstarted requests directly will be > better long term. Yes.
Many thanks for your kindly response.
Thanks Jianchao
| |