On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 09:22:54PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > > > Use the leftover space to carve 'next' field that enables linking of > > > > io_uring_cmd structs. Also introduce a list head and few helpers. > > > > > > > > This is in preparation to support nvme-mulitpath, allowing multiple > > > > uring passthrough commands to be queued. > > > > > > It's not clear to me why we need linking at that level? > > > > I think the attempt is to allow something like blk_steal_bios that > > nvme leverages for io_uring_cmd(s). > > I'll rephrase because now that I read it, I think my phrasing is > confusing. > > I think the attempt is to allow something like blk_steal_bios that > nvme leverages, but for io_uring_cmd(s). Essentially allow io_uring_cmd > to be linked in a requeue_list. io_uring_cmd is 1:1 with pt request, so I am wondering why not retry on io_uring_cmd instance directly via io_uring_cmd_execute_in_task(). I feels it isn't necessary to link io_uring_cmd into list. Thanks, Ming
