Re: [PATCH 4/6] mtip32xx: convert internal command issue to block IO path

2017-05-02 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 09:25 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 05/02/2017 09:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Any reason for the move from ->end_io_data to ->special? I thought > > that ->special was something we'd get rid of sooner or later now > > that we can have additional per-cmd data even for

Re: [PATCH 4/6] mtip32xx: convert internal command issue to block IO path

2017-05-02 Thread Christoph Hellwig
This looks reasonable to me, although of course I don't have a way to test it. Any reason for the move from ->end_io_data to ->special? I thought that ->special was something we'd get rid of sooner or later now that we can have additional per-cmd data even for !mq.

Re: [PATCH 4/6] mtip32xx: convert internal command issue to block IO path

2017-05-02 Thread Jens Axboe
On 05/02/2017 07:53 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 05/02/2017 01:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Looks fine for now: >> >> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig >> >> But rather sooner than later we need to make this path at least go >> through the normal end_request processing. Without

Re: [PATCH 4/6] mtip32xx: convert internal command issue to block IO path

2017-05-02 Thread Jens Axboe
On 05/02/2017 01:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Looks fine for now: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > But rather sooner than later we need to make this path at least go > through the normal end_request processing. Without that we're just > bound to run into problems like

Re: [PATCH 4/6] mtip32xx: convert internal command issue to block IO path

2017-05-02 Thread Christoph Hellwig
Looks fine for now: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig But rather sooner than later we need to make this path at least go through the normal end_request processing. Without that we're just bound to run into problems like we had with the tag changes again when the driver is using the