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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:31 EST