From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@codeaurora.org>,
Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@codeaurora.org>,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/5] ufs: Use reserved tags for TMFs
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:57:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191105005729.GA29695@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191105004226.232635-3-bvanassche@acm.org>
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:42:23PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Reserved tags are numerically lower than non-reserved tags. Compensate the
> change caused by reserving tags by subtracting the number of reserved tags
> from the tag number assigned by the block layer.
Why would you do that? Do we really care about the exact tag number?
If so would it make sense to reverse in the block layer how we allocate
private vs normal tags?
Also this change should probably merged into the patch that actually
starts using the private tags by actually allocating requests using
them.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-05 0:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-05 0:42 [PATCH RFC v2 0/5] Simplify and optimize the UFS driver Bart Van Assche
2019-11-05 0:42 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] Allow SCSI LLDs to reserve block layer tags Bart Van Assche
2019-11-05 0:42 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/5] ufs: Use reserved tags for TMFs Bart Van Assche
2019-11-05 0:57 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-11-05 1:03 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-11-05 11:58 ` [EXT] " Bean Huo (beanhuo)
2019-11-05 17:02 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-11-05 21:47 ` Bean Huo (beanhuo)
2019-11-05 0:42 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/5] ufs: Avoid busy-waiting by eliminating tag conflicts Bart Van Assche
2019-11-05 0:42 ` [PATCH RFC v2 4/5] ufs: Use blk_{get,put}_request() to allocate and free TMFs Bart Van Assche
2019-11-05 13:50 ` [EXT] " Bean Huo (beanhuo)
2019-11-05 17:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-11-05 21:59 ` Bean Huo (beanhuo)
2019-11-05 0:42 ` [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] ufs: Simplify the clock scaling mechanism implementation Bart Van Assche
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191105005729.GA29695@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=stanley.chu@mediatek.com \
--cc=subhashj@codeaurora.org \
--cc=tomas.winkler@intel.com \
--cc=ygardi@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.