lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:52:02 +0100 From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> CC: dedekind1@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, computersforpeace@...il.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...com, tom.leiming@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] UBI: Block: Add blk-mq support Am 10.01.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: >> +struct ubiblock_pdu { >> + struct request *req; > > No need to store the request, you can trivially get at it using > blk_mq_rq_from_pdu(). Very handy, I was not aware of blk_mq_rq_from_pdu(). >> + struct ubiblock *dev; > > Why do you need the dev pointer? You can always trivially get > it using req->queuedata. Same here. >> +static void ubiblock_do_work(struct work_struct *work) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + struct ubiblock_pdu *pdu = container_of(work, struct ubiblock_pdu, work); >> + >> + ret = ubiblock_read(pdu); >> + blk_mq_end_request(pdu->req, ret ?: 0); > > Why not just pass ret as-is? Obviously a brain fart. :-\ >> + if (blk_rq_pos(req) + blk_rq_cur_sectors(req) > >> + get_capacity(req->rq_disk)) >> + return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_ERROR; > > The upper layers take are of this check. Ok. >> + pdu->usgl.list_pos = 0; >> + pdu->usgl.page_pos = 0; > > Having a helper to initialize a ubi_sgl would be nicer than having > to open code it ike here. Ok. >> + >> + blk_mq_start_request(req); >> + ret = blk_rq_map_sg(hctx->queue, req, pdu->usgl.sg); >> + >> + queue_work(dev->wq, &pdu->work); > > Why don't you move these calls into the work queue as well? The > queue_rq call would literally just become a queue_work call. I did not know that I'm allowed to get hctx->queue also via req->q. > And given that this is a fairly common patter this should allow > us to refactor / optimize this case a bit later on. Will send a v2 in a jiffy! Thanks, //richard -- 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