Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jun 2022 17:42:36 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/5] blk-mq: Drop 'reserved' member of busy_tag_iter_fn | From | John Garry <> |
| |
On 17/06/2022 17:33, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 6/17/22 03:55, John Garry wrote: >> We no longer use the 'reserved' member in for any iter function so it > ^^^^^^ > One of these two words probably should be removed.
Yeah, it's a typo - I can fix it.
> >> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c >> index 2dcd738c6952..b8cc8b41553f 100644 >> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c >> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c >> @@ -266,7 +266,6 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, >> unsigned int bitnr, void *data) >> struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = iter_data->hctx; >> struct request_queue *q = iter_data->q; >> struct blk_mq_tag_set *set = q->tag_set; >> - bool reserved = iter_data->reserved; >> struct blk_mq_tags *tags; >> struct request *rq; >> bool ret = true; >> @@ -276,7 +275,7 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, >> unsigned int bitnr, void *data) >> else >> tags = hctx->tags; >> - if (!reserved) >> + if (!iter_data->reserved) >> bitnr += tags->nr_reserved_tags; >> /* >> * We can hit rq == NULL here, because the tagging functions > > Is the above change really necessary?
It's not totally necessary. Since local variable 'reserved' would now only be used once I thought it was better to get rid of it.
I can keep it if you really think that is better.
>> @@ -337,12 +336,11 @@ static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, >> unsigned int bitnr, void *data) >> { >> struct bt_tags_iter_data *iter_data = data; >> struct blk_mq_tags *tags = iter_data->tags; >> - bool reserved = iter_data->flags & BT_TAG_ITER_RESERVED; >> struct request *rq; >> bool ret = true; >> bool iter_static_rqs = !!(iter_data->flags & >> BT_TAG_ITER_STATIC_RQS); >> - if (!reserved) >> + if (!(iter_data->flags & BT_TAG_ITER_RESERVED)) >> bitnr += tags->nr_reserved_tags; >> /* > > Same question here: is the above change really necessary?
As above.
Thanks, john
| |