On 1/10/18 11:25 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 17:29 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> We don't need this to be an atomic flag, it can be a regular >> flag. We either end up on the same CPU for the polling, in which >> case the state is sane, or we did the sleep which would imply >> the needed barrier to ensure we see the right state. > > Please consider updating rqf_name[] in blk-mq-debugfs.c. Good catch - I'll do that, and also add a small prep patch that syncs with the current situation, looks like we're missing the timeout and zone locked flags. -- Jens Axboe
