On 12/5/18 6:11 PM, jianchao.wang wrote: >> And why aren't we just using the list_empty() check like before, and not >> having to add the inval cookie value? > > Because we use 'bypass == false' here, so blk_mq_try_issue_directly > will take over the request totally, so the request will always be > removed from the list and finally, the list must be empty. > > There is another way to identify the result of blk_mq_try_issue_directly. > Currently, > for the 'bypass == true' case, > it always return BLK_STS_OK, > for the 'bypass == false' case, > it return the actual result, except for 'force == true' case > where the request has to be inserted into hctx dispatch list > and return a BLK_STS_OK. > > We could let the 'bypass == true' case also return the actual result to > show what has been done in the blk_mq_try_issue_directly and thus we could > get the actual result of the last request. > > Would you mind we handle it like this ? I like that, sounds better than adding a new qc type. -- Jens Axboe
