[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1513270860.2475.14.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:01:06 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To: "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC: "kernel-team@...com" <kernel-team@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"osandov@...com" <osandov@...com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] blk-mq: protect completion path with RCU
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> + } else {
> + srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(hctx->queue_rq_srcu);
> + if (!blk_mark_rq_complete(rq))
> + __blk_mq_complete_request(rq);
> + srcu_read_unlock(hctx->queue_rq_srcu, srcu_idx);
Hello Tejun,
The name queue_rq_srcu was chosen to reflect the original use of that structure,
namely to protect .queue_rq() calls. Your patch series broadens the use of that
srcu structure so I would appreciate it if it would be renamed, e.g. into "srcu".
See also commit 6a83e74d214a ("blk-mq: Introduce blk_mq_quiesce_queue()").
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists