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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0423DC433DF for ; Sat, 16 May 2020 17:31:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C672065C for ; Sat, 16 May 2020 17:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726292AbgEPRbx (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 May 2020 13:31:53 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:32929 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726238AbgEPRbx (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 May 2020 13:31:53 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 1902368B05; Sat, 16 May 2020 19:31:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 19:31:50 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Christoph Hellwig , axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] blk-mq: remove a pointless queue enter pair in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx Message-ID: <20200516173150.GA21867@lst.de> References: <20200516153430.294324-1-hch@lst.de> <20200516153430.294324-4-hch@lst.de> <87513e5c-270c-41cf-51d8-9106351449b5@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87513e5c-270c-41cf-51d8-9106351449b5@acm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 09:28:22AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > This change looks wrong to me. blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues() modifies > q->queue_hw_ctx so q_usage_counter must be incremented before that > pointer is dereferenced. True, I'll drop that part.