On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 08:54:46AM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 09:58:25AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > +void blk_mq_hctx_map_queues(struct blk_mq_queue_map *qmap, > > > > Some drivers may not know hctx at all, maybe blk_mq_map_hw_queues()? > > I am not really attach to the name, I am fine with renaming it to > blk_mq_map_hw_queues. > > > > + if (dev->driver->irq_get_affinity) > > > + irq_get_affinity = dev->driver->irq_get_affinity; > > > + else if (dev->bus->irq_get_affinity) > > > + irq_get_affinity = dev->bus->irq_get_affinity; > > > > It is one generic API, I think both 'dev->driver' and > > 'dev->bus' should be validated here. > > What do you have in mind here if we get two masks? What should the > operation be: AND, OR? IMO you just need one callback to return the mask. I feel driver should get higher priority, but in the probe() example, call_driver_probe() actually tries bus->probe() first. But looks not an issue for this patchset since only hisi_sas_v2_driver(platform_driver) defines ->irq_get_affinity(), but the platform_bus_type doesn't have the callback. > > This brings up another topic I left out in this series. > blk_mq_map_queues does almost the same thing except it starts with the > mask returned by group_cpus_evenely. If we figure out how this could be > combined in a sane way it's possible to cleanup even a bit more. A bunch > of drivers do > > if (i != HCTX_TYPE_POLL && offset) > blk_mq_hctx_map_queues(map, dev->dev, offset); > else > blk_mq_map_queues(map); > > IMO it would be nice just to have one blk_mq_map_queues() which handles > this correctly for both cases. I guess it is doable, and the driver just setup the tag_set->map[], then call one generic map_queues API to do everything? Thanks, Ming
