Hello, On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:01:47PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > Dan, as I replied before, I'm not a big fan of this approach. > > Sorry I must have missed it, I can't seem to find a reply in the archives? Yeah, I can't find it either. I definitely remember writing it. Hmmm... weird. Either I'm finally losing my mind or it didn't get out for some reason. Sorry. :) > > For > > now, I think it would be best to add private wrapper in libsas to > > support deferring unchained work items while draining. > > Ok, a form of this was nak'd by James before [1], but I can try again > with pushing this chained submission checking down into scsi. The issues I see with the proposed change is, * There doesn't seem to be high demand for it. * It isn't implemented the right way - it introduces unnecessary and hidden ordering between chained work items being drained and newly queued unchained ones. We can try to do it properly without affecting new unchained work items but I'm not sure the added complexity is justified given the first issue. I don't think adding a wrapper which defers queueing while draining is going on would be too complex, right? Thank you. -- tejun -- 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
