[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140815163111.GA16652@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 09:31:11 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/9] block: loop: convert to blk-mq
> +
> +static int loop_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data,
> + unsigned int index)
> +{
> + struct loop_device *lo = data;
> +
> + hctx->driver_data = lo;
I don't think there is much of a point to store this in the hctx
instead of relying on the queue.
> +static void loop_softirq_done_fn(struct request *rq)
> +{
> + blk_mq_end_io(rq, rq->errors);
> +}
no need for a noop softirq done function.
> +static void loop_queue_work(struct work_struct *work)
Offloading work straight to a workqueue dosn't make much sense
in the blk-mq model as we'll usually be called from one. If you
need to avoid the cases where we are called directly a flag for
the blk-mq code to always schedule a workqueue sounds like a much
better plan.
--
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