Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c6a0eb8d-ad51-01b1-bc17-758acc37f216@acm.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:55:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] blk-mq: Drop 'reserved' member of busy_tag_iter_fn
Content-Language: en-US
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, hch@lst.de, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, hare@suse.de, satishkh@cisco.com,
        sebaddel@cisco.com, kartilak@cisco.com
Cc:     linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, mpi3mr-linuxdrv.pdl@broadcom.com,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        nbd@other.debian.org
References: <1655463320-241202-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <1655463320-241202-6-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <017cae1e-b45f-04fd-d34c-22ae736b28e5@acm.org>
 <a18fa379-5a9b-ff45-3be4-b253efd96a50@huawei.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <a18fa379-5a9b-ff45-3be4-b253efd96a50@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/17/22 09:42, John Garry wrote:
> On 17/06/2022 17:33, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 6/17/22 03:55, John Garry wrote:
>>> @@ -276,7 +275,7 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, 
>>> unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
>>>       else
>>>           tags = hctx->tags;
>>> -    if (!reserved)
>>> +    if (!iter_data->reserved)
>>>           bitnr += tags->nr_reserved_tags;
>>>       /*
>>>        * We can hit rq == NULL here, because the tagging functions
>>
>> Is the above change really necessary?
> 
> 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.

Thanks,

Bart.