[dm-devel] [PATCH 0/3] blk-mq/dm-rq: support BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING for dm-rq

[Mike Snitzer]

On Tue, Jan 11 2022 at  3:34P -0500,
Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 04:30:08PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Yeah, people use request-based for IO scheduling and more capable path
> > selectors. Imposing bio-based would be a pretty jarring workaround for 
> > BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING. request-based DM should properly support it.
> 
> Given that nvme-tcp is the only blocking driver that has multipath
> driver that driver explicitly does not intend to support dm-multipath
> I'm absolutely against adding block layer cruft for this particular
> use case.

this diffstat amounts to what you call "cruft":

 block/blk-core.c       |  2 +-
 block/blk-mq.c         |  6 +++---
 block/blk-mq.h         |  2 +-
 block/blk-sysfs.c      |  2 +-
 block/genhd.c          |  5 +++--
 drivers/md/dm-rq.c     |  5 ++++-
 drivers/md/dm-rq.h     |  3 ++-
 drivers/md/dm-table.c  | 14 ++++++++++++++
 drivers/md/dm.c        |  5 +++--
 drivers/md/dm.h        |  1 +
 include/linux/blkdev.h |  5 +++--
 include/linux/genhd.h  | 12 ++++++++----
 12 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

> SCSI even has this:
> 
> 	        /*
> 		 * SCSI never enables blk-mq's BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING flag so
> 		 * calling synchronize_rcu() once is enough.
> 		 */
> 		WARN_ON_ONCE(shost->tag_set.flags & BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING);
> 

Round and round we go.. Pretty tired of this.

You are perfectly fine with incrementally compromising request-based
DM's ability to evolve as block core does.

Seriously, this patchset shouldn't warrant bickering:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dm-devel/list/?series=598823

Jens, this incremental weakening of what it is that DM is allowed to
do is not something I can continue to work with (nor should Ming's or
others' contributions be rejected for such reasons).

This tribal war needs to stop.

Mike