On 3/27/23 15:12, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 12:34:26AM -0700, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: >> There is only one caller for __blk_account_io_start(), the function >> is small enough to fit in its caller blk_account_io_start(). >> >> Remove the function and opencode in the its caller >> blk_account_io_start(). > Having the account slow path in a separate function actually is nice, > same for the next patch. > >> + /* >> + * All non-passthrough requests are created from a bio with one >> + * exception: when a flush command that is part of a flush sequence >> + * generated by the state machine in blk-flush.c is cloned onto the >> + * lower device by dm-multipath we can get here without a bio. >> + */ > ... and now you've created a totally messed up block comment expanding > over 80 characters. ohh, checkpatch didn't spit out any warning [1]. -ck [1] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- p/blk-account-cleanup/0001-block-open-code-__blk_account_io_start.patch ----------------------------------------------------------------------- total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 44 lines checked p/blk-account-cleanup/0001-block-open-code-__blk_account_io_start.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- p/blk-account-cleanup/0002-block-open-code-__blk_account_io_done.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 34 lines checked p/blk-account-cleanup/0002-block-open-code-__blk_account_io_done.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
