Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 06:54:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 06:54:17 -0400 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:25350 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 06:54:16 -0400 Message-ID: <3D4FAA87.8040303@evision.ag> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:52:55 +0200 From: Marcin Dalecki Reply-To: martin@dalecki.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, pl, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens Axboe CC: martin@dalecki.de, Petr Vandrovec , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.30 IDE 113 References: <13A77E76028@vcnet.vc.cvut.cz> <3D4FA2F8.2050305@evision.ag> <20020806104238.GB1132@suse.de> <3D4FA845.90702@evision.ag> <20020806105450.GD1323@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1536 Lines: 39 Uz.ytkownik Jens Axboe napisa?: > On Tue, Aug 06 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > >>Uz.ytkownik Jens Axboe napisa?: >> >>>On Tue, Aug 06 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote: >>> >>> >>>>device not per channel! If q->request_fn would properly return the >>>>error count instead of void, we could even get rid ot the >>>>checking for rq->errors after finishment... But well that's >>>>entierly different story. >>> >>> >>>That's nonsense! What exactly would you return from a request_fn after >>>having queued, eg, 20 commands? Error count is per request, anything >>>else would be stupid. >> >>Returning the error count in the case q->request_fn is called for >>a self submitted request like for example REQ_SPECIAL would be handy and >>well defined. For the cumulative case it would of course make sense to >>return the cumulative error count. Tough not very meaningfull, it would >>indicate the occurrence of the error very fine. > > > It's much nicer to maintain a sane API that doesn't depend on stuff like > the above. Cumulative error count, come on, you can't possibly be > serious?! Hey don't get me wrong - I *do not* suggest adding it becouse I don't think we are going to change the "eat as many as possible requests" instead of "eat one request" semantics of the q->reuqest_fn(). OK? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/