Kiyoshi Ueda wrote on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:50 AM > On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:48:49 +0100, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Big NACK on this - it's not only really ugly, it's also buggy to pass > > interrupt flags as function arguments. As you also mention in the 0/1 > > mail, this also breaks CFQ. > > > > Why do you need in-interrupt request allocation? > > Because I'd like to use blk_get_request() in q->request_fn() > which can be called from interrupt context like below: > scsi_io_completion -> scsi_end_request -> scsi_next_command > -> scsi_run_queue -> blk_run_queue -> q->request_fn > > [ ...] > > Do you think creating another function like blk_get_request_nowait() > is acceptable?
You don't need to create another function. blk_get_request already have both wait and nowait semantics via gfp_mask argument. If you can not block, then clear __GFP_WAIT bit in the mask before calling blk_get_request. - Ken - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
