2003-07-28 07:47:53

by Lou Langholtz

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 2.6.0-test2] get rid of unused request_queue field queue_wait

diff -urN linux-2.6.0-test2/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c linux-2.6.0-test2-no_queue_wait/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c
--- linux-2.6.0-test2/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2003-07-27 19:02:48.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.0-test2-no_queue_wait/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2003-07-27 22:36:16.000000000 -0600
@@ -225,7 +225,6 @@
*/
blk_queue_bounce_limit(q, BLK_BOUNCE_HIGH);

- init_waitqueue_head(&q->queue_wait);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&q->plug_list);
}

diff -urN linux-2.6.0-test2/include/linux/blkdev.h linux-2.6.0-test2-no_queue_wait/include/linux/blkdev.h
--- linux-2.6.0-test2/include/linux/blkdev.h 2003-07-27 19:02:52.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.0-test2-no_queue_wait/include/linux/blkdev.h 2003-07-27 22:18:19.000000000 -0600
@@ -337,8 +337,6 @@
unsigned long seg_boundary_mask;
unsigned int dma_alignment;

- wait_queue_head_t queue_wait;
-
struct blk_queue_tag *queue_tags;

/*


Attachments:
patch-2.6.0-test2-no_queue_wait (893.00 B)

2003-07-28 12:03:29

by Jens Axboe

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2.6.0-test2] get rid of unused request_queue field queue_wait

On Mon, Jul 28 2003, Lou Langholtz wrote:
> Are we going to use the queue_wait field of struct request_queue
> someday? As of 2.6.0-test2, I don't see any use of it. If it's not
> needed anymore, the following patch gets rid of it. Tested this patch by
> compiling for i386 and also doing a grep through all .h and .c files to
> see if it's used somewhere else (admittedly weak).

It's a relic from before dynamic request allocation, for now it can
definitely go.

--
Jens Axboe

2003-07-28 13:05:37

by Jens Axboe

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2.6.0-test2] get rid of unused request_queue field queue_wait

On Mon, Jul 28 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28 2003, Lou Langholtz wrote:
> > Are we going to use the queue_wait field of struct request_queue
> > someday? As of 2.6.0-test2, I don't see any use of it. If it's not
> > needed anymore, the following patch gets rid of it. Tested this patch by
> > compiling for i386 and also doing a grep through all .h and .c files to
> > see if it's used somewhere else (admittedly weak).
>
> It's a relic from before dynamic request allocation, for now it can
> definitely go.

Eh sorry, still very much jet lagged. It has nothing to do with request
allocation. The point still stands though, it can be removed.

--
Jens Axboe