[PATCH v12 5/9] nvme: add copy offload support

[Christoph Hellwig]

>  		break;
>  	case REQ_OP_READ:
> -		ret = nvme_setup_rw(ns, req, cmd, nvme_cmd_read);
> +		if (unlikely(req->cmd_flags & REQ_COPY))
> +			nvme_setup_copy_read(ns, req);
> +		else
> +			ret = nvme_setup_rw(ns, req, cmd, nvme_cmd_read);
>  		break;
>  	case REQ_OP_WRITE:
> -		ret = nvme_setup_rw(ns, req, cmd, nvme_cmd_write);
> +		if (unlikely(req->cmd_flags & REQ_COPY))
> +			ret = nvme_setup_copy_write(ns, req, cmd);
> +		else
> +			ret = nvme_setup_rw(ns, req, cmd, nvme_cmd_write);

Yikes.  Overloading REQ_OP_READ and REQ_OP_WRITE with something entirely
different brings us back the horrors of the block layer 15 years ago.
Don't do that.  Please add separate REQ_COPY_IN/OUT (or maybe
SEND/RECEIVE or whatever) methods.

> +	/* setting copy limits */
> +	if (blk_queue_flag_test_and_set(QUEUE_FLAG_COPY, q))

I don't understand this comment.

> +struct nvme_copy_token {
> +	char *subsys;
> +	struct nvme_ns *ns;
> +	sector_t src_sector;
> +	sector_t sectors;
> +};

Why do we need a subsys token?  Inter-namespace copy is pretty crazy,
and not really anything we should aim for.  But this whole token design
is pretty odd anyway.  The only thing we'd need is a sequence number /
idr / etc to find an input and output side match up, as long as we
stick to the proper namespace scope.

> +	if (unlikely((req->cmd_flags & REQ_COPY) &&
> +				(req_op(req) == REQ_OP_READ))) {
> +		blk_mq_start_request(req);
> +		return BLK_STS_OK;
> +	}

This really needs to be hiden inside of nvme_setup_cmd.  And given
that other drivers might need similar handling the best way is probably
to have a new magic BLK_STS_* value for request started but we're
not actually sending it to hardware.