On 8/16/23 02:29, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 8/14/23 05:36, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 8/12/23 06:35, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c >>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c >>> @@ -1238,6 +1238,8 @@ static blk_status_t sd_setup_read_write_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd) >>> cmd->transfersize = sdp->sector_size; >>> cmd->underflow = nr_blocks << 9; >>> cmd->allowed = sdkp->max_retries; >>> + 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. > > The above test differs from the tests in the mq-deadline I/O scheduler. > The mq-deadline I/O scheduler uses write locking if > rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock && q->disk->seq_zones_wlock && > blk_rq_is_seq_zoned_write(rq). The above test is different and occurs > two times in scsi_error.c and one time in sd.c. Do you still want me to > introduce a helper function for that expression? May be not needed. But a comment explaining it may be good to add. I still think that added the test for use_zone_write_lock in blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock() is needed though, for consistency of all functions related to zone locking. > > Thanks, > > Bart. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
