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
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.
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
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
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