[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111026172049.GD355@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:20:49 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, jgarzik@...ox.com, davem@...emloft.net,
hch@...radead.org, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] block: add blk_queue_dead()
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 06:02:05PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> There are a number of QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD tests. Add blk_queue_dead()
> macro and use it.
>
> This patch doesn't introduce any functional difference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> ---
> block/blk-core.c | 6 +++---
> block/blk-exec.c | 2 +-
> block/blk-sysfs.c | 4 ++--
> block/blk-throttle.c | 4 ++--
> block/blk.h | 2 +-
> include/linux/blkdev.h | 1 +
> 6 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index 1efb943..7d39897 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_init_allocated_queue_node);
>
> int blk_get_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> {
> - if (likely(!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD, &q->queue_flags))) {
> + if (likely(!blk_queue_dead(q))) {
> kobject_get(&q->kobj);
> return 0;
I thought DEAD flag is now synchronized with queue lock. So the protocol
is that caller should be holding queue lock here first?
Thanks
Vivek
--
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