From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1162524AbaDCHgf (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Apr 2014 03:36:35 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:40918 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1162390AbaDCHge (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Apr 2014 03:36:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:36:31 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Matias Bjorling Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] blk-mq: support for shared tags Message-ID: <20140403073631.GA26921@lst.de> References: <1396277175-21382-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <533B56D5.5070803@bjorling.me> <20140402074632.GA11359@lst.de> <533CDF24.9030902@bjorling.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <533CDF24.9030902@bjorling.me> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:10:12PM -0700, Matias Bjorling wrote: > For the nvme driver, there's a single admin queue, which is outside > blk-mq's control, and the X normal queues. Should we allow the shared > tags structure to be used (get/put) for the admin queue, without > initializing blk-mq? or should the drivers simply implement their own > tags for their admin queue? I'd still create a request_queue for the internal queue, just not register a block device for it. For example SCSI sets up queues for each LUN found, but only a subset actually is exposed as a block device.