On 2023/8/22 03:58, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/21/23 00:35, chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> @@ -417,7 +425,23 @@ static void __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(struct blk_mq_tags *tags,
>> void blk_mq_all_tag_iter(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
>> void *priv)
>> {
>> - __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(tags, fn, priv, BT_TAG_ITER_STATIC_RQS);
>> + __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(tags, fn, priv, BT_TAG_ITER_STATIC_RQS, NULL);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(struct blk_mq_tag_set *tagset,
>> + busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *priv,
>> + struct request_queue *q)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int flags = tagset->flags;
>> + int i, nr_tags;
>> +
>> + nr_tags = blk_mq_is_shared_tags(flags) ? 1 : tagset->nr_hw_queues;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_tags; i++) {
>> + if (tagset->tags && tagset->tags[i])
>> + __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(tagset->tags[i], fn, priv,
>> + BT_TAG_ITER_STARTED, q);
>> + }
>> }
>> /**
>> @@ -436,16 +460,7 @@ void blk_mq_all_tag_iter(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
>> void blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(struct blk_mq_tag_set *tagset,
>> busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *priv)
>> {
>> - unsigned int flags = tagset->flags;
>> - int i, nr_tags;
>> -
>> - nr_tags = blk_mq_is_shared_tags(flags) ? 1 : tagset->nr_hw_queues;
>> -
>> - for (i = 0; i < nr_tags; i++) {
>> - if (tagset->tags && tagset->tags[i])
>> - __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(tagset->tags[i], fn, priv,
>> - BT_TAG_ITER_STARTED);
>> - }
>> + __blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(tagset, fn, priv, NULL);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter);
>
> One change per patch please. I think the introduction of __blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter()
> should be a separate patch instead of happening in this patch.
>
Yes, it's better. I will put it in a separate patch.
Thanks.
