From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8A323783C4 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 05:53:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769752393; cv=none; b=S7Ve7YTJaqAD1JLyIPDplPoyHqbajEckedtCMPgy/X8qtsM/s3d5M25jcgY7Dx+jSuGx07ML53b7Fl0R0cp4WLbagkIiPs5hVC//Ha+U0AyV+p/+DERHVwQ7CZQrZcefq3QVhp2ROArGZJw5rocum/1dJM01KlXhwPBM7lj6NtA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769752393; c=relaxed/simple; bh=r1+nkGyC2051ts1Jf+bG0Kth6VpzaJ3E/vWKolcTI0Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=u5OIZeZFDQLJRbVGhfdsWGWM27bd/VGybzQ7PSkM3uIkPovEm/KamYOWfJYyDXPeYb6i9aOh3FsPbn4+XPn1tJ7pLjKRqIJiNFvrJXSAvtLSd0WIpy9UFsXaibs27zbUrvEizIXxFSL8mz+kPynx7nLs2O99ev6ED25IAodt1+Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=MOTPXotF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="MOTPXotF" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=vbm1MP7byqSpkUwHsdpqZtGytMmtgAT6VdLgbKhVR1A=; b=MOTPXotFbiyYpXfHMCVp8Kh9II VHUoCUhLSyMRoPfi+C7HxdEHWBoB0ypgCjkTcad16MRX6X9e21dtOStvJYFCLB5lrUQkRBpxaQB6+ QlZnA0Uv5mwhvhK98r5yqhgMDzGVDo54JPAU4yVZ50QCmnMflSKFXjR/RRZAeZNsJpDVqNLRLRDj6 K82Ujg+mLSs3vZGr1mIahe9XxVZLKc6myxxTujkq7QAITMVpE1Hr9sZdksDWTSODnqNjKCImO6Lqr ftjPGWxquQeaOzvza7XjkQ4jNLXUcIGjEMVr82G/WLSthcVeB2TD7WuLJCMxCiAp6Z+lbnVILfemI 4AvHgLaw==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vlhRP-000000014li-0DVn; Fri, 30 Jan 2026 05:53:11 +0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 21:53:11 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: introduce blk_queue_rot() Message-ID: References: <20260129072715.1107336-1-dlemoal@kernel.org> <20260129072715.1107336-3-dlemoal@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html 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 > > > > 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.