Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752828Ab2FMGWo (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:22:44 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:56810 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752401Ab2FMGWm (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:22:42 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6740"; a="200491744" Message-ID: <9b1f5eadae482d6c6e9fe390d1fec040.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: References: <1339491984-8462-1-git-send-email-merez@codeaurora.org> <1339491984-8462-2-git-send-email-merez@codeaurora.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] block: Add test-iosched scheduler From: merez@codeaurora.org To: "Jeff Moyer" Cc: merez@codeaurora.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, "DOCUMENTATION" , "open list" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1839 Lines: 52 On Tue, June 12, 2012 1:13 pm, Jeff Moyer wrote: > merez@codeaurora.org writes: > >> On Tue, June 12, 2012 7:09 am, Jeff Moyer wrote: >>> Maya Erez writes: >>> >>>> The test scheduler allows testing a block device by dispatching >>>> specific requests according to the test case and declare PASS/FAIL >>>> according to the requests completion error code >>> >>> What sort of tests have you written that make use of this >>> infrastructure? >>> >>>> @@ -1072,8 +1072,6 @@ struct request *blk_get_request(struct >>>> request_queue *q, int rw, gfp_t gfp_mask) >>>> { >>>> struct request *rq; >>>> >>>> - BUG_ON(rw != READ && rw != WRITE); >>>> - >>> >>> Please explain this. >> get_request and get_request_wait, called by blk_get_request, expects to >> get the REQ_SYNC flag in addition to the read/write flag. Moreover, it >> uses the REQ_SYNC flag in its algorithm decision making. >> However blk_get_request expects to get a Boolean to indicate only >> read/write flag and cannot handle the REQ_SYNC flag. > > Right, so why is it okay to change this? Right now, blk_get_request is > used for block special requests. There is no sense of sync vs. async > for such requests (that's an fs request notion). Perhaps you're calling > the wrong function? > > Cheers, > Jeff > I use this function to get a WRITE_FLUSH request (which includes in its flags the REQ_SYNC flag). Is there another function I should use for this purpose? Thanks, Maya -- Sent by consultant of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum -- 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/