> 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.
