[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c7ce7e7b-3195-4609-807d-fedc87515740@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 10:02:33 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, ming.lei@...hat.com,
nilay@...ux.ibm.com, jmoyer@...hat.com
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yukuai3@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
johnny.chenyi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [patch v2 2/7] blk-mq-sched: unify elevators checking for async
requests
On 10/9/25 12:46 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> +static inline bool blk_mq_sched_sync_request(blk_opf_t opf)
> +{
> + return op_is_sync(opf) && !op_is_write(opf);
> +}
The "sched" part in the function name suggests that this function
schedules something while it only tests something. Maybe
"blk_mq_is_sync_read()" is a better function name?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists