On Fri 23-12-22 03:16:37, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> The bfqd->rq_in_driver > 0 check is along with previous
> "bfqd->rq_in_driver == 0 ||" check, so no need to re-check
> bfqd->rq_in_driver > 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I have nothing against this but OTOH in this complex condition the original
version looks more readable than the new one to me.
Honza
> ---
> block/bfq-iosched.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> index ebcafe3c4c3b..7c91d16dbf6f 100644
> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> @@ -2204,8 +2204,7 @@ static void bfq_add_request(struct request *rq)
> */
> if (bfqq == bfqd->in_service_queue &&
> (bfqd->rq_in_driver == 0 ||
> - (bfqq->last_serv_time_ns > 0 &&
> - bfqd->rqs_injected && bfqd->rq_in_driver > 0)) &&
> + (bfqq->last_serv_time_ns > 0 && bfqd->rqs_injected)) &&
> time_is_before_eq_jiffies(bfqq->decrease_time_jif +
> msecs_to_jiffies(10))) {
> bfqd->last_empty_occupied_ns = ktime_get_ns();
> --
> 2.30.0
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
