From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56D7CCA480 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:33:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1383323AbiFQQdQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2022 12:33:16 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45302 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1383322AbiFQQdP (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2022 12:33:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f171.google.com (mail-pl1-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3925333A20; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-f171.google.com with SMTP id i15so4322030plr.1; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZFZOF4kIZf5haKivlSJCFlw6yEpj+kTMN6wkZ1f2sSk=; b=UHKJifPL4xtbAPNhZJFcnltd6jefCSYR2N/M5Y1xYH2yEqSp0ILwoWgRqfiPbUeVJR CUmoeAkFkffjR55X2hEAzyJhGKUkYG4XXrbdMG0q6UT0UrviPRpKCq1VM4SPKhLEtmId doxy2Yv0geHiF9h3DgciEi+TAfbCYv0j4pvzEweA0rF+PXN7CrudIY/hCtG5sO5OfrDP +vtWrZ/oDJ7GynpOXShFl2aDSX3qfBA1p4468SO9R+u923F6QQfl/gPoRy5Ai1VYxslw lrhNCLdqClGwjGU8x9zuHdX/LzEPgrxXtUk6egFN40C9S7kQv0pSIKQeifFR+q5Nl5dH BDjw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8n/J8+pw/Re3/RiZZuZOMfBMUC/2fCV/aMTnlsT7gTNfFtDYT7 3GXoEIahyZ7muafrvugIydE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tFt6HG3OqcSvJKpLgUFiFTa/8qOGRuw+HZNz8Qnbyh9yDTQ+C2yWV2UI5DfkTd9FHmrT3DIw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7886:b0:167:5c8c:4d3e with SMTP id q6-20020a170902788600b001675c8c4d3emr10521665pll.74.1655483594617; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2620:15c:211:201:5d24:3188:b21f:5671? ([2620:15c:211:201:5d24:3188:b21f:5671]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j1-20020a170903028100b00163d4c3ffabsm3774192plr.304.2022.06.17.09.33.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <017cae1e-b45f-04fd-d34c-22ae736b28e5@acm.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:33:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] blk-mq: Drop 'reserved' member of busy_tag_iter_fn Content-Language: en-US To: John Garry , axboe@kernel.dk, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, hch@lst.de, jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, hare@suse.de, satishkh@cisco.com, sebaddel@cisco.com, kartilak@cisco.com Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, mpi3mr-linuxdrv.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nbd@other.debian.org References: <1655463320-241202-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <1655463320-241202-6-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <1655463320-241202-6-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org 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. > 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? > @@ -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? Thanks, Bart.