On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:22:43 -0700
malahal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Now the rq->deadline can't be zero if the request is in the
> timeout_list, so there is no need to have next_set. There is no need to
> access a request's deadline field if blk_rq_timed_out is called on it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Malahal Naineni <malahal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff -r a6ae42397ede block/blk-timeout.c
> --- a/block/blk-timeout.c Thu Oct 23 11:48:45 2008 -0700
> +++ b/block/blk-timeout.c Fri Oct 24 17:08:24 2008 -0700
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@
> void blk_rq_timed_out_timer(unsigned long data)
> {
> struct request_queue *q = (struct request_queue *) data;
> - unsigned long flags, uninitialized_var(next), next_set = 0;
> + unsigned long flags, next = 0;
> struct request *rq, *tmp;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
> @@ -133,15 +133,13 @@
> if (blk_mark_rq_complete(rq))
> continue;
> blk_rq_timed_out(rq);
> + } else {
> + if (!next || time_after(next, rq->deadline))
> + next = rq->deadline;
Hmm, blk_rq_timed_out(rq) could put the rq back to q->timeout_list. We
need to take care of the rq->deadline like this?
> if (blk_mark_rq_complete(rq))
> continue;
> blk_rq_timed_out(rq);
> + }
>
> + if (!next || time_after(next, rq->deadline))
> + next = rq->deadline;
But if blk_rq_timed_out calls __blk_complete_request, we don't want to
touch the rq here, I guess.
> }
> - if (!next_set) {
> - next = rq->deadline;
> - next_set = 1;
> - } else if (time_after(next, rq->deadline))
> - next = rq->deadline;
> }
>
> - if (next_set && !list_empty(&q->timeout_list))
> + if (next)
> mod_timer(&q->timeout, round_jiffies(next));
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
