On 2020-05-20 10:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> @@ -321,8 +324,30 @@ static void blk_mq_all_tag_busy_iter(struct blk_mq_tags *tags,
> busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *priv)
> {
> if (tags->nr_reserved_tags)
> - bt_tags_for_each(tags, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true);
> - bt_tags_for_each(tags, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false);
> + bt_tags_for_each(tags, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true,
> + false);
> + bt_tags_for_each(tags, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false, false);
> +}
Adding /*reserved=*/ and /*iterate_all=*/ comments in front of the
boolean arguments would make this code easier to read.
> +/**
> + * blk_mq_all_tag_iter - iterate over all requests in a tag map
> + * @tags: Tag map to iterate over.
> + * @fn: Pointer to the function that will be called for each
> + * request. @fn will be called as follows: @fn(rq, @priv,
> + * reserved) where rq is a pointer to a request. 'reserved'
> + * indicates whether or not @rq is a reserved request. Return
> + * true to continue iterating tags, false to stop.
> + * @priv: Will be passed as second argument to @fn.
> + *
> + * It is the caller's responsibility to check rq's state in @fn.
^^^^^^
@fn?
Not sure how the blk_mq_all_tag_iter() caller can check the request
state ...
> + */
> +void blk_mq_all_tag_iter(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
> + void *priv)
> +{
> + if (tags->nr_reserved_tags)
> + bt_tags_for_each(tags, &tags->breserved_tags, fn, priv, true,
> + true);
> + bt_tags_for_each(tags, &tags->bitmap_tags, fn, priv, false, true);
> }
Same comment here: I think that adding /*reserved=*/ and
/*iterate_all=*/ comments in front of the boolean arguments would make
this code easier to read.
Otherwise this patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Bart.
