On 8/15/23 02:00, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/14/23 05:33, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 8/12/23 06:35, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> @@ -934,7 +936,7 @@ static void dd_finish_request(struct request *rq)
>>>
>>> atomic_inc(&per_prio->stats.completed);
>>>
>>> - if (blk_queue_is_zoned(q)) {
>>> + if (rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock) {
>>
>> This is all nice and simple ! However, an inline helper to check
>> rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock would be nice. E.g.
>> blk_queue_use_zone_write_lock() ?
>
> Hi Damien,
>
> Do you perhaps want me to introduce a function that does nothing else than
> returning the value of q->limits.use_zone_write_lock? I'm asking this because
> recently I have seen a fair number of patches that remove functions that do
> nothing else than returning the value of a single member variable.
I think that what you proposed in your other email (modify
blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock) is better when you need to test
use_zone_write_lock using a request.
Not sure about the cases where we need to test that limit using the queue only.
I personally like helpers that avoid hardcoding accesses to the queue limits,
but if such helpers are not OK, that is fine. No strong opinion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
