Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "blk_abandon_queu".
Did you mean:
blk_abandon_queue
2014 Feb 18
2
[PATCH v4 RFC 0/3] virtio: add 'device_lost' to virtio_device
...s.
>
> I think the correct answer is to drop all requests if the virtqueue
> is broken:
>
> - blk_cleanup_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
> + if (virtqueue_is_broken(vblk->vq))
> + /* Don't wait for completion, just drop queue. */
> + blk_abandon_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
Rusty,
but blk_abandon_queue() would not solve the incomplete in-flight
requests, would it? I suppose it would avoid additional in-flight
requests similar to __blk_request_all() and passing -EIO.
Ending of asynchronous in-flight requests still cause other problems
in th...
2014 Feb 18
2
[PATCH v4 RFC 0/3] virtio: add 'device_lost' to virtio_device
...s.
>
> I think the correct answer is to drop all requests if the virtqueue
> is broken:
>
> - blk_cleanup_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
> + if (virtqueue_is_broken(vblk->vq))
> + /* Don't wait for completion, just drop queue. */
> + blk_abandon_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
Rusty,
but blk_abandon_queue() would not solve the incomplete in-flight
requests, would it? I suppose it would avoid additional in-flight
requests similar to __blk_request_all() and passing -EIO.
Ending of asynchronous in-flight requests still cause other problems
in th...
2014 Feb 20
0
[PATCH v4 RFC 0/3] virtio: add 'device_lost' to virtio_device
...correct answer is to drop all requests if the virtqueue
>> is broken:
>>
>> - blk_cleanup_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
>> + if (virtqueue_is_broken(vblk->vq))
>> + /* Don't wait for completion, just drop queue. */
>> + blk_abandon_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
> Rusty,
>
> but blk_abandon_queue() would not solve the incomplete in-flight
> requests, would it? I suppose it would avoid additional in-flight
> requests similar to __blk_request_all() and passing -EIO.
>
> Ending of asynchronous in-flight requests...
2014 Jan 28
2
[PATCH v4 RFC 0/3] virtio: add 'device_lost' to virtio_device
On 23/01/14 05:51, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th.
>
> Hi Heinz,
>
> I didn't get a response on my 'break all the virtqueues' patch
> series. Could your System Z code work with this?
>
> Rusty.
>
>
Sorry Rusty,
2014 Jan 28
2
[PATCH v4 RFC 0/3] virtio: add 'device_lost' to virtio_device
On 23/01/14 05:51, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Heinz Graalfs <graalfs at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> Hi, here is my v4 patch-set update to the v3 RFC submitted on Nov 27th.
>
> Hi Heinz,
>
> I didn't get a response on my 'break all the virtqueues' patch
> series. Could your System Z code work with this?
>
> Rusty.
>
>
Sorry Rusty,
2014 Jan 29
0
[PATCH v4 RFC 0/3] virtio: add 'device_lost' to virtio_device
...till have the problem of in-flight requests.
I think the correct answer is to drop all requests if the virtqueue
is broken:
- blk_cleanup_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
+ if (virtqueue_is_broken(vblk->vq))
+ /* Don't wait for completion, just drop queue. */
+ blk_abandon_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
+ else
+ blk_cleanup_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
+
Unfortunately blk_abandon_queue() doesn't exist. Your previous patch
did nothing in that path, which I suspect may leak memory. That may be
acceptable given that this Shouldn't Happen (often).
At...