[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220519105935.psejehys7uwlzmmk@quack3.lan>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 12:59:35 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Cc: jack@...e.cz, paolo.valente@...aro.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
tj@...nel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/8] block, bfq: cleanup bfq_weights_tree
add/remove apis
On Sat 14-05-22 17:05:15, Yu Kuai wrote:
> They already pass 'bfqd' as the first parameter, there is no need to
> pass 'bfqd->queue_weights_tree' as another parameter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Looks good. Just one nit below:
> @@ -945,12 +945,13 @@ void bfq_weights_tree_add(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
> * about overhead.
> */
> void __bfq_weights_tree_remove(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
> - struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
> - struct rb_root_cached *root)
> + struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
> {
> + struct rb_root_cached *root;
Add empty line here please.
> if (!bfqq->weight_counter)
> return;
>
> + root = &bfqd->queue_weights_tree;
> bfqq->weight_counter->num_active--;
> if (bfqq->weight_counter->num_active > 0)
> goto reset_entity_pointer;
Otherwise the patch looks good. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists