At least after review is done I really think this patch sopuld be folded
into the previous one.
Some more comments below:
@@ -58,6 +58,12 @@ struct virtblk_req
struct bio *bio;
struct virtio_blk_outhdr out_hdr;
struct virtio_scsi_inhdr in_hdr;
+ struct work_struct work;
+ struct virtio_blk *vblk;
I think using bio->bi_private for the virtio_blk pointer would
be cleaner.
+ bool is_flush;
+ bool req_flush;
+ bool req_data;
+ bool req_fua;
This could be a bitmap, or better even a single state field.
+static int virtblk_bio_send_flush(struct virtio_blk *vblk,
+ struct virtblk_req *vbr)
+static int virtblk_bio_send_data(struct virtio_blk *vblk,
+ struct virtblk_req *vbr)
These should only get the struct virtblk_req * argument as the virtio_blk
structure is easily derivable from it.
+static inline void virtblk_bio_done_flush(struct virtio_blk *vblk,
+ struct virtblk_req *vbr)
{
+ if (vbr->req_data) {
+ /* Send out the actual write data */
+ struct virtblk_req *_vbr;
+ _vbr = virtblk_alloc_req(vblk, GFP_NOIO);
+ if (!_vbr) {
+ bio_endio(vbr->bio, -ENOMEM);
+ goto out;
+ }
+ _vbr->req_fua = vbr->req_fua;
+ _vbr->bio = vbr->bio;
+ _vbr->vblk = vblk;
+ INIT_WORK(&_vbr->work, virtblk_bio_send_data_work);
+ queue_work(virtblk_wq, &_vbr->work);
The _vbr naming isn't too nice. Also can you explain why the original
request can't be reused in a comment here
Also if using a state variable I think the whole code would be
a bit cleaner if the bio_done helpers are combined.
- if (writeback && !use_bio)
+ if (writeback)
blk_queue_flush(vblk->disk->queue, REQ_FLUSH);
Shouldn't this be REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA for the bio case?
Btw, did you verify that flushes really work correctly for all cases
using tracing in qemu?