On 2022/12/20 22:10, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> - /*
>>> - * Does queue (or any parent entity) exceed number of requests that
>>> - * should be available to it? Heavily limit depth so that it cannot
>>> - * consume more available requests and thus starve other entities.
>>> - */
>>> - if (bfqq && bfqq_request_over_limit(bfqq, limit))
>>> - depth = 1;
>>> + for (act_idx = 0; act_idx < bfqd->num_actuators; act_idx++) {
>>> + struct bfq_queue *bfqq =
>>> + bic ? bic_to_bfqq(bic, op_is_sync(opf), act_idx) : NULL;
>>
>> Commented already: why not add a "if (!bfqq) return NULL;" in
>> bic_to_bfqq() ?
>
> You have probably missed my reply on this. The problem is that your
> proposal would improve code (only) here, but it would entail the above
> control for all the other invocations, for which it is useless :(
But then you have *a lot* of "if (bfqd)" tests that are useless elsewhere since
bic_to_bfqq() never returns NULL.
And for this line, I personally would prefer seeing something like:
struct bfq_queue *bfqq;
if (bic)
bfqd = bic_to_bfqq(bic, op_is_sync(opf), act_idx)
else
bfqd = NULL;
Which is a lot simpler to read.
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
