[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b98ad03b-e599-6023-3b34-ebefb590bf8c@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 12:12:55 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, <axboe@...nel.dk>,
<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>, <hch@....de>,
<jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <hare@...e.de>,
<satishkh@...co.com>, <sebaddel@...co.com>, <kartilak@...co.com>
CC: <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <mpi3mr-linuxdrv.pdl@...adcom.com>,
<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<nbd@...er.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] blk-mq: Drop 'reserved' member of busy_tag_iter_fn
On 17/06/2022 17:55, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>
>> It's not totally necessary. Since local variable 'reserved' would now
>> only be used once I thought it was better to get rid of it.
>>
>> I can keep it if you really think that is better.
>
> I'd prefer that these changes are either left out or that these are
> moved into a separate patch. I think that will make this patch series
> easier to review.
Personally I think that this is a trivial change and does not merit a
separate patch. Other reviewers seem to agree. Anyway, if you feel
strongly about this then I can put in another patch.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists