[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1515449032.2909.27.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 22:03:53 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To: "jbacik@...com" <jbacik@...com>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "clm@...com" <clm@...com>,
"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>,
"linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] blk-mq: use blk_mq_rq_state() instead of testing
REQ_ATOM_COMPLETE
On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:15 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> blk_mq_check_inflight() and blk_mq_poll_hybrid_sleep() test
> REQ_ATOM_COMPLETE to determine the request state. Both uses are
> speculative and we can test REQ_ATOM_STARTED and blk_mq_rq_state() for
> equivalent results. Replace the tests. This will allow removing
> REQ_ATOM_COMPLETE usages from blk-mq.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists