[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction
On Sun, Jul 28 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > I think Martin's was wrong in concept, mine was wrong in implementation.
> I don't understand why you think the concept is wrong. Right now all users
> clearly do want to free the tag on re-issue, and doing so clearly cleans
> up the code and avoids duplication.
> So I still don't see the advantage of your patch, even once you've fixed
> the locking issue.

Ok... I had two issues with the patch. 1) it did

rq->flags &= REQ_QUEUED;

which is just broken. 2) it combined the act of inserting back into the
block queue with clearing the tag associated with the request. #1 is
clearly a bug that should be fixed regardless of what we do. Right now,
yes, the only user of blk_insert_request (SCSI) needs the tag cleared. I
still don't think that's a reason to mingle the two different tasks into
one. Code duplication is not an argument, the two scsi_insert_* should
be folded into one. The only difference is SRpnt->sr_request vs
SCpnt->request after all.

> HOWEVER, if you really think that some future users might not want to have
> the tag played with, how about making the "at_head" thing a flags field,
> and letting people say so by having "INSERT_NOTAG" (and making the
> existing bit be INSERT_ATHEAD).
> So then the SCSI users would look like
> blk_insert_request(q, SRpnt->sr_request,
> at_head ? INSERT_ATHEAD : 0,
> SRpnt)
> while your future non-tag user might do
> blk_insert_request(q, newreq,
> channel);
> _without_ having that unnecessary code duplication.

*shrug* I guess we could do that. I don't see any immediate use beyond
at_head/back and tag clearing.

I'll back down, it's not a matter of life and death after all. Here's
the minimal patch that corrects the flag thing, and also makes
blk_insert_request() conform to kernel style. Are we all happy?

# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet 1.509 -> 1.510
# drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 1.96 -> 1.97
# The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
# --------------------------------------------
# 02/07/29 1.510
# fix REQ_QUEUED clearing in blk_insert_request()
# --------------------------------------------
diff -Nru a/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c b/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c
--- a/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c Mon Jul 29 12:42:43 2002
+++ b/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c Mon Jul 29 12:42:43 2002
@@ -1253,7 +1253,7 @@
* host that is unable to accept a particular command.
void blk_insert_request(request_queue_t *q, struct request *rq,
- int at_head, void *data)
+ int at_head, void *data)
unsigned long flags;

@@ -1262,15 +1262,18 @@
* must not attempt merges on this) and that it acts as a soft
* barrier
- rq->flags &= REQ_QUEUED;

rq->special = data;

spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
- /* If command is tagged, release the tag */
- if(blk_rq_tagged(rq))
+ /*
+ * If command is tagged, release the tag
+ */
+ if (blk_rq_tagged(rq))
blk_queue_end_tag(q, rq);
_elv_add_request(q, rq, !at_head, 0);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);

Jens Axboe

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.106 / U:6.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site