> On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 02:16 +0000, Tangchen (UVP) wrote: > > But I'm not using mq, and I run into these two problems in a non-mq system. > > The patch you pointed out is fix for mq, so I don't think it can resolve this > problem. > > > > IIUC, mq is for SSD ? I'm not using ssd, so mq is disabled. > > Hello Tangchen, > > Please post replies below the original e-mail instead of above - that is the reply > style used on all Linux-related mailing lists I know of. From > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style: > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Hi Bart, Thanks for the reply. Will post the reply in e-mail. :) > > Regarding your question: sorry but I quoted the wrong commit in my previous > e-mail. The commit I should have referred to is 255ee9320e5d ("scsi: Make > __scsi_remove_device go straight from BLOCKED to DEL"). That patch not only > affects scsi-mq but also the single-queue code in the SCSI core. OK, I'll try this one. Thx. > > blk-mq/scsi-mq was introduced for SSDs but is not only intended for SSDs. > The plan is to remove the blk-sq/scsi-sq code once the blk-mq/scsi-mq code > works at least as fast as the single queue code for all supported devices. > That includes hard disks. OK, thanks for tell me this. > > Bart.
