Re: Regarding posted scsi midlyaer patchsets

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

 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/