Re: [PATCH rfc 04/10] block: Add a non-selective polling interface

[Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>]

>> Quite some additional newlines and I'm not really fond of the
>> ->poll_batch() name. It's a bit confusing with ->poll() and we also have
>> irq_poll(). But the only thing that would come to my mind is
>> complete_batch() which "races" with ->complete().
>
> What about ->check_completions()? After all, that is what both ->poll()
> and ->poll_batch do but with a different stop condition, no ?
> So it would also be easy to merge the two: both tag and batch are
> unsigned int which could be called "cookie", and add a flag to tell how
> to interpret it (as a tag or a batch limit).
> e.g. something like:
>
> +typedef int (check_completions_fn)(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *,
> 		enum blk_mq_check_flags, /* flag (TAG or BATCH) */
> 		unsigned int); /* Target tag or batch limit */
>

I'd rather not to unite poll/poll_batch, but if this is something
that people want I can definitely do it.