Re: [PATCH for-4.10] blk-mq: Remove unused variable

Re: [PATCH for-4.10] blk-mq: Remove unused variable

[Jens Axboe]

On 01/18/2017 02:21 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>

Does it cause a warning anywhere? If not, I'd rather not apply
it, since it'll cause a merge conflict for 4.11 (and the problem
doesn't exist there).

-- 
Jens Axboe

[PATCH for-4.10] blk-mq: Remove unused variable

[Keith Busch]

Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
---
 block/blk-mq.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index a8e67a1..c3400b5 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -912,7 +912,6 @@ bool blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct list_head *list)
 static void blk_mq_process_rq_list(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
 {
 	LIST_HEAD(rq_list);
-	LIST_HEAD(driver_list);
 
 	if (unlikely(blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx)))
 		return;
-- 
2.5.5

Re: [PATCH for-4.10] blk-mq: Remove unused variable

[Jens Axboe]

On 01/18/2017 02:16 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/18/2017 02:21 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
> 
> Does it cause a warning anywhere? If not, I'd rather not apply
> it, since it'll cause a merge conflict for 4.11 (and the problem
> doesn't exist there).

Ah screw it, the fact that we have that in 4.10 is an eye sore.
I'd rather deal with the conflict, I'll apply it for 4.10. Thanks
Keith.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH for-4.10] blk-mq: Remove unused variable

[Keith Busch]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:21:48PM -0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/18/2017 02:16 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 01/18/2017 02:21 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> >> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
> > 
> > Does it cause a warning anywhere? If not, I'd rather not apply
> > it, since it'll cause a merge conflict for 4.11 (and the problem
> > doesn't exist there).
> 
> Ah screw it, the fact that we have that in 4.10 is an eye sore.
> I'd rather deal with the conflict, I'll apply it for 4.10. Thanks
> Keith.

Okay, thanks. I was just clearing my backlog of emails and this was on
my todo list from a couple weeks ago, but I didn't noticed 4.11 corrected
this in the mq scheduler set.