Re: [PATCH 2/7] blk-mq: add mq_ops->commit_rqs()

2018-12-03 Thread Sagi Grimberg

Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg 


Re: [PATCH 2/7] blk-mq: add mq_ops->commit_rqs()

2018-11-29 Thread Jens Axboe
On 11/29/18 8:45 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:35:33AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> blk-mq passes information to the hardware about any given request being
>> the last that we will issue in this sequence. The point is that hardware
>> can defer costly doorbell type writes to the last request. But if we run
>> into errors issuing a sequence of requests, we may never send the request
>> with bd->last == true set. For that case, we need a hook that tells the
>> hardware that nothing else is coming right now.
>>
>> For failures returned by the drivers ->queue_rq() hook, the driver is
>> responsible for flushing pending requests, if it uses bd->last to
>> optimize that part. This works like before, no changes there.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval 
>> Reviewed-by: Ming Lei 
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig 
> 
> I don't think I actually reviewed it before in this form.
> 
> But now that I took a look it does indeed look fine to me:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig 

Only change is moving those two hunks from the later patch into this
one, so it isn't an empty declaration.

-- 
Jens Axboe



Re: [PATCH 2/7] blk-mq: add mq_ops->commit_rqs()

2018-11-29 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:35:33AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> blk-mq passes information to the hardware about any given request being
> the last that we will issue in this sequence. The point is that hardware
> can defer costly doorbell type writes to the last request. But if we run
> into errors issuing a sequence of requests, we may never send the request
> with bd->last == true set. For that case, we need a hook that tells the
> hardware that nothing else is coming right now.
> 
> For failures returned by the drivers ->queue_rq() hook, the driver is
> responsible for flushing pending requests, if it uses bd->last to
> optimize that part. This works like before, no changes there.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval 
> Reviewed-by: Ming Lei 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig 

I don't think I actually reviewed it before in this form.

But now that I took a look it does indeed look fine to me:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig