[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081105191201.GO21867@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:12:01 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Block: use round_jiffies_up()
On Wed, Nov 05 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Alan Stern wrote:
> > > @@ -78,13 +78,14 @@ void blk_delete_timer(struct request *re
> > > /*
> > > * Nothing to detach
> > > */
> > > - if (!q->rq_timed_out_fn || !req->deadline)
> > > + if (!req->deadline)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > list_del_init(&req->timeout_list);
> > >
> > > if (list_empty(&q->timeout_list))
> > > del_timer(&q->timeout);
> > > + req->deadline = 0;
> > > }
> >
> > Actually, this can just be
> >
> > blk_delete_timer()
> > {
> > list_del_init(&req->timeout_list);
> > if (list_empty(&q->timeout_list))
> > del_timer(&q->timeout);
> > }
> >
> > and none of req->deadline trick is necessary.
>
> True. And if we do this, then there's no need to test and increment
> req->deadline in blk_add_timer().
It was an optimization for drivers that don't use block layer timers,
but we can get rid of it.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists