> -bool blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie) > +bool blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie, bool spin) I find the paramter name a little confusing. Maybe wait_for_request, although I don't particularly like that one either. But we really need to document the parameter well here, no matter what we end up naming it. And we should use a consistent name through the whole stack. > index c1ec3475a140..f6971b45bc54 100644 > --- a/drivers/nvme/target/io-cmd-bdev.c > +++ b/drivers/nvme/target/io-cmd-bdev.c > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static void nvmet_bdev_execute_rw(struct nvmet_req *req) > > cookie = submit_bio(bio); > > - blk_poll(bdev_get_queue(req->ns->bdev), cookie); > + blk_poll(bdev_get_queue(req->ns->bdev), cookie, true); This opportunistic poll is pretty bogus now as we never set the HIPRI flag and it should probably be removed in a prep patch. We should then later try to use a scheme similar to your aio polling for the nvme target as well.
