> Il giorno 21 dic 2022, alle ore 11:13, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>
>
>
>> Il giorno 21 dic 2022, alle ore 01:50, Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm probably misunderstanding your point, sorry. Could you point me
> to one of the places where there is the useless control that would go
> away if we add your proposed control inside bic_to_bfqq?
You had already done that in a following email, sorry. I have replied
to that email of yours.
Thanks,
Paolo
