linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] blk-mq: Inline request status checkers

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:09:28 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nbd@...er.debian.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] blk-mq: Inline request status checkers

On 9/30/19 2:12 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 30/09/2019 22:53, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 9/30/19 12:43 PM, Pavel Begunkov (Silence) wrote:
>>> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
>>>   	 * test and set the bit before assining ->rqs[].
>>>   	 */
>>>   	rq = tags->rqs[bitnr];
>>> -	if (rq && blk_mq_request_started(rq))
>>> +	if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) != MQ_RQ_IDLE)
>>>   		return iter_data->fn(rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
>>>   
>>>   	return true>
>>> @@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ static bool blk_mq_tagset_count_completed_rqs(struct request *rq,
>>>   {
>>>   	unsigned *count = data;
>>>   
>>> -	if (blk_mq_request_completed(rq))
>>> +	if (blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_COMPLETE)
>>>   		(*count)++;
>>>   	return true;
>>>   }
>>
>> Changes like the above significantly reduce readability of the code in
>> the block layer core. I don't like this. I think this patch is a step
>> backwards instead of a step forwards.
> 
> Yep, looks too bulky.
> 
> Jens, could you consider the first version?

Yes, first one is fine, I have applied it. Thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe