On 8/15/23 02:57, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/14/23 05:36, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 8/12/23 06:35, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> + if (!rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock && blk_rq_is_seq_zoned_write(rq))
>>
>> This condition could be written as a little inline helper
>> blk_req_need_zone_write_lock(), which could be used in mq-dealine patch 2.
>
> Hi Damien,
>
> Since q->limits.use_zone_write_lock is being introduced, how about
> modifying blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock() such that it tests that new member
> variable instead of checking rq->q->disk->seq_zones_wlock? That would allow
> me to leave out one change from block/mq-deadline.c. I do not have a strong
> opinion about whether the name blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock() should be
> retained or whether that function should be renamed into
> blk_req_use_zone_write_lock().
Something like this ?
diff --git a/block/blk-zoned.c b/block/blk-zoned.c
index 619ee41a51cc..a3980a71c0ac 100644
--- a/block/blk-zoned.c
+++ b/block/blk-zoned.c
@@ -57,7 +57,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_zone_cond_str);
*/
bool blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock(struct request *rq)
{
- if (!rq->q->disk->seq_zones_wlock)
+ struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
+
+ if (!q->limits.use_zone_write_lock)
+ return false;
+
+ if (!q->disk->seq_zones_wlock)
return false;
return blk_rq_is_seq_zoned_write(rq);
I think that is fine and avoids adding yet another helper.
I am OK with this.
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
