Hi James, Jens,
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:46:38 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 10:14 -0400, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> > I think you should use blk_end_request(req, -EIO, blk_rq_bytes(rq))
> > here instead of end_dequeued_request(req, -EIO).
> >
> > end_dequeued_request() needs to be called with queue lock held,
> > but I can't see any queue lock in your patches.
> > Also, if you add the queue lock and still use end_dequeued_request(),
> > __end_that_request_first(), which completes BIOs in the request,
> > is called with the queue lock held, though it doesn't require queue
> > lock actually. So that might cause some performance regressions.
>
> Yes, I was just getting around to noticing this. Several other issues
> spring immediately to mind
>
> 1. Why are there both end_dequeued_request and end_queued_request?
> They both (by design since we tried to make the end cases the
> same) do the same thing
They originally differed a little bit, but when blk_end_request
interfaces were introduced, they became exactly same:
http://marc.info/?t=120008891100007&r=1&w=2
So I tried to kill them:
http://marc.info/?t=120008891100007&r=1&w=2
But Jens suggested keep them for a while at the time.
Is it the time now to kill them, Jens?
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
