On 11/19/18 1:05 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> -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. spin_until_found? I don't like using 'wait*' as we're not waiting. >> 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. I'll kill it in a pre-patch. -- Jens Axboe
