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;
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
To:     "tom.leiming@gmail.com" <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux@roeck-us.net" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>, "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        "ming.lei@redhat.com" <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
        "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        "James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com" 
        <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        "josef@toxicpanda.com" <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1
Thread-Topic: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1
Thread-Index: AQHUKeplC62Adp/s7EWpMcTZnFWHbKSrkCyAgAAC74CAAAGHgIAAUnqAgABuzgCAABkqAIAAOGGAgAADqYCAAAMAgIAAAeuA
Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2018 16:57:46 +0000
Message-ID: <e54984699a0e9fc1c7f2629730ee8fecc1251f70.camel@wdc.com>
References: <20180801175852.36549130@canb.auug.org.au>
         <20180801224813.GA13074@roeck-us.net>
         <1533163965.3158.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
         <20180801234727.GA3762@roeck-us.net>
         <CACVXFVMrzLRP5Q=cwZGnqeUeyODL3Pq9jMkT7czZouK9510fUA@mail.gmail.com>
         <1533168205.3158.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
         <171b2cdc-2e74-2b3c-e5f5-c656a196601a@roeck-us.net>
         <CACVXFVMT7UwWHPQ6K-eNWZJOoZ77==Ki7zmX5UtDz4ZQFFB0Jw@mail.gmail.com>
         <a10a509a-7e5c-1706-52ee-79849cad4224@roeck-us.net>
         <20180802162654.GA8928@ming.t460p>
         <9329f50c734eec5fa994ea652890f017a88625c2.camel@wdc.com>
         <CACVXFVNi_R3Xecwm7weqEv5Lqy+F-Nxmbq4-i3089Ge2qHFD_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVNi_R3Xecwm7weqEv5Lqy+F-Nxmbq4-i3089Ge2qHFD_g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
wdcipoutbound: EOP-TRUE
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7"
Content-ID: <05C4C245F90B1E4C846554FD3297D211@namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1faa4136-d49a-466b-d858-08d5f899129e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Aug 2018 16:57:46.7002
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b61c8803-16f3-4c35-9b17-6f65f441df86
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR04MB1248
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:50 +-0800, Ming Lei wrote:
+AD4- On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Bart Van Assche +ADw-Bart.VanAssche+=
AEA-wdc.com+AD4- wrote:
+AD4- +AD4- On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:27 +-0800, Ming Lei wrote:
+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- This issue can be fixed by reverting d250bf4e776ff09d5 (+=
ACI-blk-mq: only iterate over
+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- inflight requests in blk+AF8-mq+AF8-tagset+AF8-busy+AF8-i=
ter+ACI-).
+AD4- +AD4- +AD4-=20
+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- This patch looks wrong, because 'blk+AF8-mq+AF8-rq+AF8-st=
ate(rq) +AD0APQ- MQ+AF8-RQ+AF8-IN+AF8-FLIGHT'
+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- isn't completely same with 'blk+AF8-mq+AF8-request+AF8-st=
arted(req)'.
+AD4- +AD4-=20
+AD4- +AD4- Please test the following change instead of reverting the commi=
t mentioned
+AD4- +AD4- above:
+AD4- +AD4-=20
+AD4- +AD4- diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+AD4- +AD4- index 09b2ee6694fb..25a0583d8b4c 100644
+AD4- +AD4- --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+AD4- +AD4- +-+-+- b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+AD4- +AD4- +AEAAQA- -271,7 +-271,7 +AEAAQA- static bool bt+AF8-tags+AF8-it=
er(struct sbitmap +ACo-bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void +ACo-data)
+AD4- +AD4-          +ACo- test and set the bit before assining -+AD4-rqs+A=
FsAXQ-.
+AD4- +AD4-          +ACo-/
+AD4- +AD4-         rq +AD0- tags-+AD4-rqs+AFs-bitnr+AF0AOw-
+AD4- +AD4- -       if (rq +ACYAJg- blk+AF8-mq+AF8-rq+AF8-state(rq) +AD0APQ=
- MQ+AF8-RQ+AF8-IN+AF8-FLIGHT)
+AD4- +AD4- +-       if (rq +ACYAJg- blk+AF8-mq+AF8-rq+AF8-state(rq) +ACEAP=
Q- MQ+AF8-RQ+AF8-IDLE)
+AD4- +AD4-                 iter+AF8-data-+AD4-fn(rq, iter+AF8-data-+AD4-da=
ta, reserved)+ADs-
+AD4- +AD4-=20
+AD4- +AD4-         return true+ADs-
+AD4- +AD4-=20
+AD4-=20
+AD4- I just sent out a similar patch on list, but use blk+AF8-mq+AF8-reque=
st+AF8-started()
+AD4- instead.
+AD4-=20
+AD4- https://marc.info/?l+AD0-linux-scsi+ACY-m+AD0-153322823307754+ACY-w+A=
D0-2

Hello Ming,

Since both patches are functionally equivalent, I'm fine with either versio=
n.

Bart.