Hello, Israel.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:16:14PM +0300, Israel Rukshin wrote:
> >Just noticed this one, this looks interesting to me as well. Israel,
> >can you run your test with this patch?
>
> Yes, I just did and it looks good.
Awesome.
> >>+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >>@@ -227,6 +227,8 @@ struct request {
> >> unsigned int extra_len; /* length of alignment and padding */
> >> + bool missed_completion;
> >>+
> >
> >Would be nicer if we can flag this somewhere instead of adding a hole to
> >struct request...
I missed it before. It's actually being put in an existing hole, so
the struct size stays the same before and after. It's a bit of
cheating cuz this is one of the two holes which can be removed by
swapping two fields.
Re. making it a flag, regardless of whether this is a flag or a
separate field, we need to add a new field because there currently is
no field which can be modified by the party who doesn't own the
request, so if we make it a flag, we need to add sth like unsigned
long atom_flags.
Thanks.
--
tejun
