[PATCH 0/2] Cleanup patches

[PATCH 0/2] Cleanup patches

[Damien Le Moal]

Jens,

Here is a couple of cleanup patches for the block layer.
No functional changes are introduced by these patches.

Damien Le Moal (2):
  block: cleanup queue limit features definition
  block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

 block/bfq-iosched.c    | 20 ++++++++++----------
 block/blk-iocost.c     |  2 +-
 block/blk-iolatency.c  |  5 +----
 block/blk-wbt.c        |  5 ++---
 include/linux/blkdev.h | 11 +++++------
 5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

-- 
2.52.0

[PATCH 1/2] block: cleanup queue limit features definition

[Damien Le Moal]

Unwrap the definition of BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES and
renumber this feature to be sequential with BLK_FEAT_SKIP_TAGSET_QUIESCE.

Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
---
 include/linux/blkdev.h | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
index 251e0f538c4c..4536211ff33c 100644
--- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -340,14 +340,13 @@ typedef unsigned int __bitwise blk_features_t;
 /* skip this queue in blk_mq_(un)quiesce_tagset */
 #define BLK_FEAT_SKIP_TAGSET_QUIESCE	((__force blk_features_t)(1u << 13))
 
+/* atomic writes enabled */
+#define BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES		((__force blk_features_t)(1u << 14))
+
 /* undocumented magic for bcache */
 #define BLK_FEAT_RAID_PARTIAL_STRIPES_EXPENSIVE \
 	((__force blk_features_t)(1u << 15))
 
-/* atomic writes enabled */
-#define BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES \
-	((__force blk_features_t)(1u << 16))
-
 /*
  * Flags automatically inherited when stacking limits.
  */
-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: cleanup queue limit features definition

[Nitesh Shetty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 281 bytes --]

On 29/01/26 04:27PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>Unwrap the definition of BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES and
>renumber this feature to be sequential with BLK_FEAT_SKIP_TAGSET_QUIESCE.
>
>Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
>---
Reviewed-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@samsung.com>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: cleanup queue limit features definition

[John Garry]

On 29/01/2026 07:27, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Unwrap the definition of BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES and
> renumber this feature to be sequential with BLK_FEAT_SKIP_TAGSET_QUIESCE.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>

> ---
>   include/linux/blkdev.h | 7 +++----
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> index 251e0f538c4c..4536211ff33c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> @@ -340,14 +340,13 @@ typedef unsigned int __bitwise blk_features_t;
>   /* skip this queue in blk_mq_(un)quiesce_tagset */
>   #define BLK_FEAT_SKIP_TAGSET_QUIESCE	((__force blk_features_t)(1u << 13))
>   
> +/* atomic writes enabled */
> +#define BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES		((__force blk_features_t)(1u << 14))

I think that BLK_FEAT_BOUNCE_HIGH used to be numbered here

> +
>   /* undocumented magic for bcache */
>   #define BLK_FEAT_RAID_PARTIAL_STRIPES_EXPENSIVE \
>   	((__force blk_features_t)(1u << 15))
>   
> -/* atomic writes enabled */
> -#define BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES \
> -	((__force blk_features_t)(1u << 16))
> -
>   /*
>    * Flags automatically inherited when stacking limits.
>    */

Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: cleanup queue limit features definition

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 04:27:14PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Unwrap the definition of BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES and
> renumber this feature to be sequential with BLK_FEAT_SKIP_TAGSET_QUIESCE.

Looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

[PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

[Damien Le Moal]

To check if a request queue is for a rotational device, a double
negation is needed with the pattern "!blk_queue_nonrot(q)". Simplify
this with the introduction of the helper blk_queue_rot() which tests
if a requests queue limit has the BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL feature set.
All call sites of blk_queue_nonrot() are modified to use blk_queue_rot()
and blk_queue_nonrot() definition removed.

No functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
---
 block/bfq-iosched.c    | 20 ++++++++++----------
 block/blk-iocost.c     |  2 +-
 block/blk-iolatency.c  |  5 +----
 block/blk-wbt.c        |  5 ++---
 include/linux/blkdev.h |  4 ++--
 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 6e54b1d3d8bc..3ebdec40e758 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *bfq_pool;
 #define BFQ_RQ_SEEKY(bfqd, last_pos, rq) \
 	(get_sdist(last_pos, rq) >			\
 	 BFQQ_SEEK_THR &&				\
-	 (!blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) ||		\
+	 (blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue) ||			\
 	  blk_rq_sectors(rq) < BFQQ_SECT_THR_NONROT))
 #define BFQQ_CLOSE_THR		(sector_t)(8 * 1024)
 #define BFQQ_SEEKY(bfqq)	(hweight32(bfqq->seek_history) > 19)
@@ -4165,7 +4165,7 @@ static bool bfq_bfqq_is_slow(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
 
 	/* don't use too short time intervals */
 	if (delta_usecs < 1000) {
-		if (blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue))
+		if (!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue))
 			 /*
 			  * give same worst-case guarantees as idling
 			  * for seeky
@@ -4487,7 +4487,7 @@ static bool idling_boosts_thr_without_issues(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
 					     struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
 {
 	bool rot_without_queueing =
-		!blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) && !bfqd->hw_tag,
+		blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue) && !bfqd->hw_tag,
 		bfqq_sequential_and_IO_bound,
 		idling_boosts_thr;
 
@@ -4521,7 +4521,7 @@ static bool idling_boosts_thr_without_issues(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
 	 * flash-based device.
 	 */
 	idling_boosts_thr = rot_without_queueing ||
-		((!blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) || !bfqd->hw_tag) &&
+		((blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue) || !bfqd->hw_tag) &&
 		 bfqq_sequential_and_IO_bound);
 
 	/*
@@ -4722,7 +4722,7 @@ bfq_choose_bfqq_for_injection(struct bfq_data *bfqd)
 			 * there is only one in-flight large request
 			 * at a time.
 			 */
-			if (blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) &&
+			if (!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue) &&
 			    blk_rq_sectors(bfqq->next_rq) >=
 			    BFQQ_SECT_THR_NONROT &&
 			    bfqd->tot_rq_in_driver >= 1)
@@ -6340,7 +6340,7 @@ static void bfq_update_hw_tag(struct bfq_data *bfqd)
 	bfqd->hw_tag_samples = 0;
 
 	bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing =
-		blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) && bfqd->hw_tag;
+		!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue) && bfqd->hw_tag;
 }
 
 static void bfq_completed_request(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_data *bfqd)
@@ -7293,7 +7293,7 @@ static int bfq_init_queue(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_queue *eq)
 	INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&bfqd->burst_list);
 
 	bfqd->hw_tag = -1;
-	bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing = blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue);
+	bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing = !blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue);
 
 	bfqd->bfq_max_budget = bfq_default_max_budget;
 
@@ -7328,9 +7328,9 @@ static int bfq_init_queue(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_queue *eq)
 	 * Begin by assuming, optimistically, that the device peak
 	 * rate is equal to 2/3 of the highest reference rate.
 	 */
-	bfqd->rate_dur_prod = ref_rate[blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue)] *
-		ref_wr_duration[blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue)];
-	bfqd->peak_rate = ref_rate[blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue)] * 2 / 3;
+	bfqd->rate_dur_prod = ref_rate[!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue)] *
+		ref_wr_duration[!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue)];
+	bfqd->peak_rate = ref_rate[!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue)] * 2 / 3;
 
 	/* see comments on the definition of next field inside bfq_data */
 	bfqd->actuator_load_threshold = 4;
diff --git a/block/blk-iocost.c b/block/blk-iocost.c
index a0416927d33d..ef543d163d46 100644
--- a/block/blk-iocost.c
+++ b/block/blk-iocost.c
@@ -812,7 +812,7 @@ static int ioc_autop_idx(struct ioc *ioc, struct gendisk *disk)
 	u64 now_ns;
 
 	/* rotational? */
-	if (!blk_queue_nonrot(disk->queue))
+	if (blk_queue_rot(disk->queue))
 		return AUTOP_HDD;
 
 	/* handle SATA SSDs w/ broken NCQ */
diff --git a/block/blk-iolatency.c b/block/blk-iolatency.c
index 45bd18f68541..f7434278cd29 100644
--- a/block/blk-iolatency.c
+++ b/block/blk-iolatency.c
@@ -988,10 +988,7 @@ static void iolatency_pd_init(struct blkg_policy_data *pd)
 	u64 now = blk_time_get_ns();
 	int cpu;
 
-	if (blk_queue_nonrot(blkg->q))
-		iolat->ssd = true;
-	else
-		iolat->ssd = false;
+	iolat->ssd = !blk_queue_rot(blkg->q);
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		struct latency_stat *stat;
diff --git a/block/blk-wbt.c b/block/blk-wbt.c
index 0974875f77bd..8e025834f2fb 100644
--- a/block/blk-wbt.c
+++ b/block/blk-wbt.c
@@ -747,10 +747,9 @@ u64 wbt_default_latency_nsec(struct request_queue *q)
 	 * We default to 2msec for non-rotational storage, and 75msec
 	 * for rotational storage.
 	 */
-	if (blk_queue_nonrot(q))
-		return 2000000ULL;
-	else
+	if (blk_queue_rot(q))
 		return 75000000ULL;
+	return 2000000ULL;
 }
 
 static int wbt_data_dir(const struct request *rq)
diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
index 4536211ff33c..1e5b5547929f 100644
--- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -680,7 +680,7 @@ void blk_queue_flag_clear(unsigned int flag, struct request_queue *q);
 #define blk_queue_nomerges(q)	test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_NOMERGES, &(q)->queue_flags)
 #define blk_queue_noxmerges(q)	\
 	test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_NOXMERGES, &(q)->queue_flags)
-#define blk_queue_nonrot(q)	(!((q)->limits.features & BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL))
+#define blk_queue_rot(q)	((q)->limits.features & BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL)
 #define blk_queue_io_stat(q)	((q)->limits.features & BLK_FEAT_IO_STAT)
 #define blk_queue_passthrough_stat(q)	\
 	((q)->limits.flags & BLK_FLAG_IOSTATS_PASSTHROUGH)
@@ -1463,7 +1463,7 @@ bdev_write_zeroes_unmap_sectors(struct block_device *bdev)
 
 static inline bool bdev_nonrot(struct block_device *bdev)
 {
-	return blk_queue_nonrot(bdev_get_queue(bdev));
+	return !blk_queue_rot(bdev_get_queue(bdev));
 }
 
 static inline bool bdev_synchronous(struct block_device *bdev)
-- 
2.52.0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

[Nitesh Shetty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1786 bytes --]

On 29/01/26 04:27PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>To check if a request queue is for a rotational device, a double
>negation is needed with the pattern "!blk_queue_nonrot(q)". Simplify
>this with the introduction of the helper blk_queue_rot() which tests
>if a requests queue limit has the BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL feature set.
>All call sites of blk_queue_nonrot() are modified to use blk_queue_rot()
>and blk_queue_nonrot() definition removed.
>
>No functional changes.
>
>Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
>---
> block/bfq-iosched.c    | 20 ++++++++++----------
> block/blk-iocost.c     |  2 +-
> block/blk-iolatency.c  |  5 +----
> block/blk-wbt.c        |  5 ++---
> include/linux/blkdev.h |  4 ++--
> 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>index 6e54b1d3d8bc..3ebdec40e758 100644
>--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
>+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *bfq_pool;
> #define BFQ_RQ_SEEKY(bfqd, last_pos, rq) \
> 	(get_sdist(last_pos, rq) >			\
> 	 BFQQ_SEEK_THR &&				\
>-	 (!blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) ||		\
>+	 (blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue) ||			\
> 	  blk_rq_sectors(rq) < BFQQ_SECT_THR_NONROT))
> #define BFQQ_CLOSE_THR		(sector_t)(8 * 1024)
> #define BFQQ_SEEKY(bfqq)	(hweight32(bfqq->seek_history) > 19)
>@@ -4165,7 +4165,7 @@ static bool bfq_bfqq_is_slow(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
>
> 	/* don't use too short time intervals */
> 	if (delta_usecs < 1000) {
>-		if (blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue))
>+		if (!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue))
blk_queue_rot looks fine to me in other places.
Keeping blk_queue_nonrot would avoid the double negation here and few places.
I see you made the changes for bdev_nonrot down, but missed to add here
?

Thanks,
Nitesh

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

[Damien Le Moal]

On 1/29/26 18:18, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> On 29/01/26 04:27PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> To check if a request queue is for a rotational device, a double
>> negation is needed with the pattern "!blk_queue_nonrot(q)". Simplify
>> this with the introduction of the helper blk_queue_rot() which tests
>> if a requests queue limit has the BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL feature set.
>> All call sites of blk_queue_nonrot() are modified to use blk_queue_rot()
>> and blk_queue_nonrot() definition removed.
>>
>> No functional changes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> block/bfq-iosched.c    | 20 ++++++++++----------
>> block/blk-iocost.c     |  2 +-
>> block/blk-iolatency.c  |  5 +----
>> block/blk-wbt.c        |  5 ++---
>> include/linux/blkdev.h |  4 ++--
>> 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> index 6e54b1d3d8bc..3ebdec40e758 100644
>> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *bfq_pool;
>> #define BFQ_RQ_SEEKY(bfqd, last_pos, rq) \
>> 	(get_sdist(last_pos, rq) >			\
>> 	 BFQQ_SEEK_THR &&				\
>> -	 (!blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) ||		\
>> +	 (blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue) ||			\
>> 	  blk_rq_sectors(rq) < BFQQ_SECT_THR_NONROT))
>> #define BFQQ_CLOSE_THR		(sector_t)(8 * 1024)
>> #define BFQQ_SEEKY(bfqq)	(hweight32(bfqq->seek_history) > 19)
>> @@ -4165,7 +4165,7 @@ static bool bfq_bfqq_is_slow(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
>>
>> 	/* don't use too short time intervals */
>> 	if (delta_usecs < 1000) {
>> -		if (blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue))
>> +		if (!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue))
> blk_queue_rot looks fine to me in other places.
> Keeping blk_queue_nonrot would avoid the double negation here and few places.

There is no more double negation. blk_queue_rot() tests for a feature flag being
set. The !blk_queue_rot(q) tests the opposite.

> I see you made the changes for bdev_nonrot down, but missed to add here
> ?

Here where ? What did I miss ?


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

[Nitesh Shetty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2282 bytes --]

On 29/01/26 06:38PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>On 1/29/26 18:18, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>> On 29/01/26 04:27PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> To check if a request queue is for a rotational device, a double
>>> negation is needed with the pattern "!blk_queue_nonrot(q)". Simplify
>>> this with the introduction of the helper blk_queue_rot() which tests
>>> if a requests queue limit has the BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL feature set.
>>> All call sites of blk_queue_nonrot() are modified to use blk_queue_rot()
>>> and blk_queue_nonrot() definition removed.
>>>
>>> No functional changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>> block/bfq-iosched.c    | 20 ++++++++++----------
>>> block/blk-iocost.c     |  2 +-
>>> block/blk-iolatency.c  |  5 +----
>>> block/blk-wbt.c        |  5 ++---
>>> include/linux/blkdev.h |  4 ++--
>>> 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>>> index 6e54b1d3d8bc..3ebdec40e758 100644
>>> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
>>> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>>> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *bfq_pool;
>>> #define BFQ_RQ_SEEKY(bfqd, last_pos, rq) \
>>> 	(get_sdist(last_pos, rq) >			\
>>> 	 BFQQ_SEEK_THR &&				\
>>> -	 (!blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) ||		\
>>> +	 (blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue) ||			\
>>> 	  blk_rq_sectors(rq) < BFQQ_SECT_THR_NONROT))
>>> #define BFQQ_CLOSE_THR		(sector_t)(8 * 1024)
>>> #define BFQQ_SEEKY(bfqq)	(hweight32(bfqq->seek_history) > 19)
>>> @@ -4165,7 +4165,7 @@ static bool bfq_bfqq_is_slow(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
>>>
>>> 	/* don't use too short time intervals */
>>> 	if (delta_usecs < 1000) {
>>> -		if (blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue))
>>> +		if (!blk_queue_rot(bfqd->queue))
>> blk_queue_rot looks fine to me in other places.
>> Keeping blk_queue_nonrot would avoid the double negation here and few places.
>
>There is no more double negation. blk_queue_rot() tests for a feature flag being
>set. The !blk_queue_rot(q) tests the opposite.
>
>> I see you made the changes for bdev_nonrot down, but missed to add here
>> ?
>
>Here where ? What did I miss ?
>
My bad, I thought you added a new helper for bdev_rot at the end,
which check for rotation device.

Reviewed-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@samsung.com>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 04:27:15PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> To check if a request queue is for a rotational device, a double
> negation is needed with the pattern "!blk_queue_nonrot(q)". Simplify
> this with the introduction of the helper blk_queue_rot() which tests
> if a requests queue limit has the BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL feature set.
> All call sites of blk_queue_nonrot() are modified to use blk_queue_rot()
> and blk_queue_nonrot() definition removed.

Looks good, and I should have done that soon after inverting the
underlying flag:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

We should also do the same with bdev_nonrot, maybe staged because
of a lot of callers outside the block code.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

[Damien Le Moal]

On 1/30/26 14:42, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 04:27:15PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> To check if a request queue is for a rotational device, a double
>> negation is needed with the pattern "!blk_queue_nonrot(q)". Simplify
>> this with the introduction of the helper blk_queue_rot() which tests
>> if a requests queue limit has the BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL feature set.
>> All call sites of blk_queue_nonrot() are modified to use blk_queue_rot()
>> and blk_queue_nonrot() definition removed.
> 
> Looks good, and I should have done that soon after inverting the
> underlying flag:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 
> We should also do the same with bdev_nonrot, maybe staged because
> of a lot of callers outside the block code.

Yes, that is why I did not send a patch for that one as the changes are mostly
in file systems. Will send something later.


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 02:50:12PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 1/30/26 14:42, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 04:27:15PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> >> To check if a request queue is for a rotational device, a double
> >> negation is needed with the pattern "!blk_queue_nonrot(q)". Simplify
> >> this with the introduction of the helper blk_queue_rot() which tests
> >> if a requests queue limit has the BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL feature set.
> >> All call sites of blk_queue_nonrot() are modified to use blk_queue_rot()
> >> and blk_queue_nonrot() definition removed.
> > 
> > Looks good, and I should have done that soon after inverting the
> > underlying flag:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > 
> > We should also do the same with bdev_nonrot, maybe staged because
> > of a lot of callers outside the block code.
> 
> Yes, that is why I did not send a patch for that one as the changes are mostly
> in file systems. Will send something later.

It might be a good idea to just add it and use in "block tree" code,
and then we can convert other callers in the next merge window and
eventually kill off bdev_nonrot.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()

[Damien Le Moal]

On 1/30/26 14:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 02:50:12PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 1/30/26 14:42, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 04:27:15PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>>> To check if a request queue is for a rotational device, a double
>>>> negation is needed with the pattern "!blk_queue_nonrot(q)". Simplify
>>>> this with the introduction of the helper blk_queue_rot() which tests
>>>> if a requests queue limit has the BLK_FEAT_ROTATIONAL feature set.
>>>> All call sites of blk_queue_nonrot() are modified to use blk_queue_rot()
>>>> and blk_queue_nonrot() definition removed.
>>>
>>> Looks good, and I should have done that soon after inverting the
>>> underlying flag:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>>
>>> We should also do the same with bdev_nonrot, maybe staged because
>>> of a lot of callers outside the block code.
>>
>> Yes, that is why I did not send a patch for that one as the changes are mostly
>> in file systems. Will send something later.
> 
> It might be a good idea to just add it and use in "block tree" code,
> and then we can convert other callers in the next merge window and
> eventually kill off bdev_nonrot.

Indeed, that will avoid potential problems with new use in linux-next.


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Cleanup patches

[Martin K. Petersen]

Damien,

> Here is a couple of cleanup patches for the block layer. No functional
> changes are introduced by these patches.

Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>

-- 
Martin K. Petersen

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Cleanup patches

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 16:27:13 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Jens,
> 
> Here is a couple of cleanup patches for the block layer.
> No functional changes are introduced by these patches.
> 
> Damien Le Moal (2):
>   block: cleanup queue limit features definition
>   block: introduce blk_queue_rot()
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/2] block: cleanup queue limit features definition
      commit: 068f5b5ef5bf97e25568950f06ba32325bdc660b
[2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot()
      commit: 2719bd1ee1a1cd0535bc62e89b52822f2bbd14eb

Best regards,
-- 
Jens Axboe