On Sun, Apr 27 2008 at 11:42 +0300, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:26:20 +0300 > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 25 2008 at 13:03 +0300, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:31:41 +0200 >>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 25 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:22:04 +0200 >>>>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 25 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:49:30 +0200 >>>>>>> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 24 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:31:21 +0900 >>>>>>>>> FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:50:42 +0300 >>>>>>>>>> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The support for large commands was dropped from the for-2.6.26 branch >>>>>>>>>>> and will probably not get accepted into next kernel. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have tried to take all comments from Jens and Bart. and incorporate >>>>>>>>>>> it into a new patchset. This is basically Tomo's patchset but with >>>>>>>>>>> proposed changes. >>>>>>>>>> Have you seen the patchset to remove request on the stack? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-ide&m=120882410712466&w=2 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They are based on current linux-block/master. They will probably conflict with >>>>>>>>>>> latest patch sent by Tomo for the blk_get_request(). Once those patches >>>>>>>>>>> get accepted at some git tree, (Where will that be?), I will rebase these >>>>>>>>>>> on top of them. Please CC me of any progress. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 1/5] block: no need to initialize rq->cmd >>>>>>>>>>> This is 2 of Tomo's patches squashed together as they are >>>>>>>>>>> small and do the same. Tomo is this OK? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 2/5] block: replace sizeof(rq->cmd) with BLK_MAX_CDB >>>>>>>>>>> Tomos patch rebased to here >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 3/5] block: Export rq_init, rename to blk_init_rq >>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH 4/5] block: Use new blk_init_rq >>>>>>>>>>> These patches are basically what Jens and Bart has suggested, that with >>>>>>>>>>> a small code change to blk-core.c we can memset at rq_init() and only set >>>>>>>>>>> none zero members. We can also export that initializer and use it all over >>>>>>>>>>> the ide tree where ever requests don't come from a request queue. (OK also >>>>>>>>>>> at scsi_error.c) >>>>>>>>>> +void blk_init_rq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, int cmd_flags) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hmm, would it be better to modify the block layer to let rq_init just >>>>>>>>>> memset() the request structure? >>>>>>>>> I think, if we move rq_init to blk_alloc_request from get_request, >>>>>>>>> rq_init can just memset() the structure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then we can export rq_init and rq_init works for everyone. >>>>>>>> Wont work, see the io scheduler set_request() functions. >>>>>>> Sorry, can you be more specific? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only cfq uses set_request for now. cfq_set_request uses rq->cmd_flags >>>>>>> and stores information at rq->elevator_private and >>>>>>> rq->elevator_private2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The patch does memset() the request structure and sets up >>>>>>> rq->cmd_flags, and then elv_set_request. Doesn't it work? >>>>>> Sorry, with the moved rq_init() it should work, didn't look closely >>>>>> enough. >>>>> No problem. >>>>> >>>>> So are you ok with the patch? If so, I'll re-send it with a proper >>>>> description and the signed-off. >>>> Please do - I actually already merged it, but do resend with a full >>>> description and signed-off etc. >>> I just stole your description and added my signed-off. >>> >>> Will you merge the large command support for 2.6.26? Or only this >>> clean-up patch? >>> >>> = >>> From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: [PATCH] block: make rq_init() do a full memset() >>> >>> This requires moving rq_init() from get_request() to blk_alloc_request(). >>> The upside is that we can now require an rq_init() from any path that >>> wishes to hand the request to the block layer. >>> >>> rq_init() will be exported for the code that uses struct request >>> without blk_get_request. >>> >>> This is a preparation for large command support, which needs to >>> initialize struct request in a proper way (that is, just doing a >>> memset() will not work). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >> <snip> >> >> Sorry for the late response. Those hebrew holidays on they way of Linux >> coding ;-). >> >> I don't mind as long as these things get accepted. But how is that any >> different then the patch I sent? >> [PATCH 3/5] block: Export rq_init, rename to blk_init_rq >> It does exactly 100% the same move of rq_init to blk_alloc_request and the memset and >> all, Have you looked at the patches at all? I feel like a mute person ;-( > > No, it's not same at all. Please look at the patchset again. Your > interface is: > > +void blk_init_rq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, int cmd_flags) > > I don't like that. It's hacky. You needed that hacky inferface because > you didn't fix the root problem, rq_init was not able to do a full > memset(). > What are you talking about? I did the full memset and moved the call to blk_alloc_request() exactly like you did it. I added the flags param because I think it was nice, since all places need set the flags afterwards so it is more elegant with the flags in the function call. Also it tells user that we must set what kind of request it is just like blk_alloc_request() takes rw flags parameter. So I did not do any hacking I did it because it is more stylish. But if you don't like it, that's fine, but at least comment on the exact problems so I know what you don't like. > I fixed the root problem with this patch: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=120901807514386&w=2 > > > Then, we have the same interface as before: > > +void blk_rq_init(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq) > As I said, I did not want same interface as before I wanted the flags added so it is easier for users. > >> If you are going to export the rq_init function then I think the name is very >> wrong. And you have not exported it? > > It was renamed blk_rq_init since we have lots of blk_rq_* functions. Sorry. yes you did that in the next patch. I should read all mail before I reply. Any way it all looks very good to me. I am just now compiling it together with the scsi bits for testing with the OSD stack, but I'm sure it is all good. Thanks Tomo, this looks promising. I hope it will get upstream soon, I wish you would have CCed me on all these patches so I get notify of their progress into the trees. At the end, I'm the one that needs them the most. Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
