On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:45:46AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/16/21 2:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:24:21AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> + spin_lock(&nvmeq->sq_lock);
> >> + while (!rq_list_empty(*rqlist)) {
> >> + struct request *req = rq_list_pop(rqlist);
> >> + struct nvme_iod *iod = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(req);
> >> +
> >> + memcpy(nvmeq->sq_cmds + (nvmeq->sq_tail << nvmeq->sqes),
> >> + absolute_pointer(&iod->cmd), sizeof(iod->cmd));
> >> + if (++nvmeq->sq_tail == nvmeq->q_depth)
> >> + nvmeq->sq_tail = 0;
> >
> > So this doesn't even use the new helper added in patch 2? I think this
> > should call nvme_sq_copy_cmd().
>
> But you NAK'ed that one? It definitely should use that helper, so I take it
> you are fine with it then if we do it here too? That would make 3 call sites,
> and I still do think the helper makes sense...
I explained two times that the new helpers is fine as long as you open
code nvme_submit_cmd in its two callers as it now is a trivial wrapper.
