From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756311AbZEMF7X (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 01:59:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752172AbZEMF7O (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 01:59:14 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:44359 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752161AbZEMF7N (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 01:59:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 07:59:14 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Tejun Heo Cc: Kiyoshi Ueda , Boaz Harrosh , FUJITA Tomonori , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] swim3: use blk_end_request instead of blk_update_request Message-ID: <20090513055913.GZ4140@kernel.dk> References: <1242127787-29842-1-git-send-email-fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1242127787-29842-3-git-send-email-fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <4A098B8D.10107@panasas.com> <4A099562.7020805@kernel.org> <4A0A1941.2010105@ct.jp.nec.com> <20090513054901.GW4140@kernel.dk> <4A0A6003.8060800@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0A6003.8060800@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 13 2009, Tejun Heo wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >>> Yeah, conversion was easy that way. I think it's sane to have > >>> blk_update_request() exported as long as request internal tinkering is > >>> kept in block layer proper. > >> blk_update_request() is needed for request-based dm to keep the request > >> completion ordering in bottom-up, although request-based dm is not > >> in upstream yet. > >> > >> Jens, please keep blk_update_request() exported. > > > > I did, I applied the swim3 patches yesterday as well. > > I don't think the patch is correct. If it calls > blk_end_request_all(), it should also clear the current request which > the patch doesn't. Also, given that the driver doesn't support > partially failing the request, I think it's correct to fail > segment-by-segment to avoid merged request failure affects unrelated > bios. > > Thanks. OK, I'll back them out for now. -- Jens Axboe