From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A37C433F5 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 07:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234595AbhL3Hxx (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Dec 2021 02:53:53 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:39568 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231688AbhL3Hxx (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Dec 2021 02:53:53 -0500 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 715A768AFE; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 08:53:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 08:53:48 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Keith Busch Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, sagi@grimberg.me Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] nvme-pci: fix queue_rqs list splitting Message-ID: <20211230075348.GA5073@lst.de> References: <20211227164138.2488066-1-kbusch@kernel.org> <20211227164138.2488066-3-kbusch@kernel.org> <20211229174602.GC28058@lst.de> <20211229210446.GC2493133@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211229210446.GC2493133@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 01:04:46PM -0800, Keith Busch wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 06:46:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > + rq_list_move(rqlist, &requeue_list, req, prev, next); > > > + > > > + req = prev; > > > + if (!req) > > > + continue; > > > > Shouldn't this be a break? > > The condition just means we're at the beginning of the rqlist. There may > be more requests to consider, so we have to continue. > > Or are you saying any failed prep should just abandon the batched > sequence? If so, we would need to concat the return list with the rest > of rqlist before breaking. No, I misunderstood the check,