On 05/02/2017 09:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This looks reasonable to me, although of course I don't have a way > to test it. I've got a few cards at least. > Any reason for the move from ->end_io_data to ->special? I thought > that ->special was something we'd get rid of sooner or later now > that we can have additional per-cmd data even for !mq. With the switch to blk_execute_rq(), we can't be using end_io_data and end_io, as we use that internally for the wakeup. So I have to stuff it somewhere. The obvious option would be to move it to mtip_cmd, but we can't safely access that prior to having a driver tag assigned, which doesn't happen until we end up in our ->queue_rq(). So we need to stuff it somewhere. -- Jens Axboe
