Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:58:46 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets |
| |
Hello, James. Hello, Jens.
James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 07:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> As it's been almost a week since I posted scsi midlayer patchsets and >>haven't heard anything yet, I've been wondering what's going on. Are >>they under review or all dropped? If they are dropped, can you please >>tell me why they are dropped? > > > I have about four of them in the scsi-misc-2.6 tree, if you look. > > Your request path rewrite I already gave you feedback that I didn't want > REQ_SOFTBARRIER in scsi ... it needs to be in the block submit API for > special requests. Also, you have a patch for block in this code so I > can't apply it without an ack from Jens. And all the rest of your > patches depend on this one.
This thread started as an private inquiry to James regarding the status of four patchsets I posted about a week ago. I'm replying publicly as I think we can use some discussion. The four patchsets are... (in the following order)
* timer updates * REQ_SPECIAL/REQ_SOFTBARRIER usage change * scsi_request_fn reimpl * requeue path consolidation.
Accepted patches are
* scsi_cmnd->internal_timeout kill * scsi_cmnd->serial_number_at_timeout * remove volatile * scsi_send_eh_cmnd() clean up
All four accepted patches are not included in any of above patchsets and the timer update patchset doesn't depend on REQ_SPECIAL/REQ_SOFTBARRIER usage change patchset, so please review the timer update patchset.
And, James, regarding REQ_SOFTBARRIER, if the REQ_SOFTBARRIER thing can be removed from SCSI midlayer, do you agree to change REQ_SPECIAL to mean special requests? If so, I have three proposals.
* move REQ_SOFTBARRIER setting to right after the allocation of scsi_cmnd in scsi_prep_fn(). This will be the only place where REQ_SOFTBARRIER is used in SCSI midlayer, making it less pervasive. * Or, make another API which sets REQ_SOFTBARRIER on requeue. maybe blk_requeue_ordered_request()? * Or, make blk_insert_request() not set REQ_SPECIAL on requeue. IMHO, this is a bit too subtle.
I like #1 or #2. Jens, what do you think? Do you agree to remove requeue feature from blk_insert_request()?
Thanks a lot. :-)
-- tejun
- 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/
| |