On Tue, Nov 27 2018 at 7:42pm -0500,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The previous patches deleted all the code that needed the second value
> returned from part_in_flight - now the kernel only uses the first value.
>
> Consequently, part_in_flight (and blk_mq_in_flight) may be changed so that
> it only returns one value.
>
> This patch just refactors the code, there's no functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> block/blk-mq.c | 6 ++++--
> block/blk-mq.h | 3 +--
> block/genhd.c | 32 +++++++++++---------------------
> block/partition-generic.c | 6 +++---
> include/linux/genhd.h | 3 +--
> 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-block/block/blk-mq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-block.orig/block/blk-mq.c 2018-11-28 00:39:16.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-block/block/blk-mq.c 2018-11-28 00:39:16.000000000 +0100
> @@ -113,13 +113,15 @@ static bool blk_mq_check_inflight(struct
> return true;
> }
>
> -void blk_mq_in_flight(struct request_queue *q, struct hd_struct *part,
> - unsigned int inflight[2])
> +unsigned int blk_mq_in_flight(struct request_queue *q, struct hd_struct *part)
> {
> + unsigned inflight[2];
> struct mq_inflight mi = { .part = part, .inflight = inflight, };
>
> inflight[0] = inflight[1] = 0;
> blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(q, blk_mq_check_inflight, &mi);
> +
> + return inflight[0];
> }
I don't think this change goes deep enough. You're leaving unnecessary
work (relative to mi->inflight[1]) in blk_mq_check_inflight().
Mike
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
