Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:42:03 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
        James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Ewan Milne <emilne@redhat.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com>,
        Linux NVMe Mailinglist <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Rework NVMe abort handling
Message-ID: <20180719134203.GA15212@lst.de>
References: <20180719132838.15556-1-jthumshirn@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180719132838.15556-1-jthumshirn@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:28:34PM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> PCI currently is the only transport we have which is doing more than
> queueing a transport reset but trying to abort the command first.
> 
> This series brings the other transports we currently have up to the
> same level.

Without even looking at the code yet:  why?  The nvme abort isn't
very useful, and due to the lack of ordering between different
queues almost harmful on fabrics.  What problem do you try to
solve?