Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:52:02 +0100 | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] UBI: Block: Add blk-mq support |
| |
Am 10.01.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: >> +struct ubiblock_pdu { >> + struct request *req; > > No need to store the request, you can trivially get at it using > blk_mq_rq_from_pdu().
Very handy, I was not aware of blk_mq_rq_from_pdu().
>> + struct ubiblock *dev; > > Why do you need the dev pointer? You can always trivially get > it using req->queuedata.
Same here.
>> +static void ubiblock_do_work(struct work_struct *work) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + struct ubiblock_pdu *pdu = container_of(work, struct ubiblock_pdu, work); >> + >> + ret = ubiblock_read(pdu); >> + blk_mq_end_request(pdu->req, ret ?: 0); > > Why not just pass ret as-is?
Obviously a brain fart. :-\
>> + if (blk_rq_pos(req) + blk_rq_cur_sectors(req) > >> + get_capacity(req->rq_disk)) >> + return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_ERROR; > > The upper layers take are of this check.
Ok.
>> + pdu->usgl.list_pos = 0; >> + pdu->usgl.page_pos = 0; > > Having a helper to initialize a ubi_sgl would be nicer than having > to open code it ike here.
Ok.
>> + >> + blk_mq_start_request(req); >> + ret = blk_rq_map_sg(hctx->queue, req, pdu->usgl.sg); >> + >> + queue_work(dev->wq, &pdu->work); > > Why don't you move these calls into the work queue as well? The > queue_rq call would literally just become a queue_work call.
I did not know that I'm allowed to get hctx->queue also via req->q.
> And given that this is a fairly common patter this should allow > us to refactor / optimize this case a bit later on.
Will send a v2 in a jiffy!
Thanks, //richard
| |