On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:25:21PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:46 PM Keith Busch <kbusch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 04:43:16PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 03:05:58PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > > > > The block layer knows how to deal with polled requests. Let the NVMe > > > > driver use the previously reserved user "flags" fields to define an > > > > option to allocate the request from the polled hardware contexts. If > > > > polling is not enabled, then the block layer will automatically fallback > > > > to a non-polled request. > > > > > > So this only support synchronous polling for a single command. What > > > use case do we have for that? I think io_uring based polling would > > > be much more useful once we support NVMe passthrough through that. > > > > There is no significant use case here. I just needed a simple way to > > test the polled exec from earlier in the series. It was simple enough so > > I included the patch here, but it's really not important compared to the > > preceeding patches. > > It would be great to see this in at some point; helps in making > passthrough more useful. > I'll look into integrating this with async-passthrough. Right, async ioctl would really provide better justification for passthrough polling. I'll post a new version of this series this week to address the previously submitted feedback, but without this patch for now.
