From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1236C43217 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3536112D for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230477AbhINIKQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:10:16 -0400 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]:3786 "EHLO frasgout.his.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230509AbhINII4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:08:56 -0400 Received: from fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4H7wqx49m6z67bMW; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:05:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) by fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:07:09 +0200 Received: from [10.47.80.114] (10.47.80.114) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:07:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 05/13] blk-mq-sched: Rename blk_mq_sched_alloc_{tags -> map_and_rqs}() To: Hannes Reinecke , CC: , , , References: <1631545950-56586-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <1631545950-56586-6-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> From: John Garry Message-ID: <4a139bf3-d536-4f9c-8cd2-6fbd6da7d6c4@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:10:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.47.80.114] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.204) To lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org >> +static int blk_mq_sched_alloc_map_and_rqs(struct request_queue *q, >> +                      struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, >> +                      unsigned int hctx_idx) >>   { >>       struct blk_mq_tag_set *set = q->tag_set; >>       int ret; >> @@ -609,15 +609,15 @@ int blk_mq_init_sched(struct request_queue *q, >> struct elevator_type *e) >>                      BLKDEV_DEFAULT_RQ); >>       queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) { >> -        ret = blk_mq_sched_alloc_tags(q, hctx, i); >> +        ret = blk_mq_sched_alloc_map_and_rqs(q, hctx, i); >>           if (ret) >> -            goto err_free_tags; >> +            goto err_free_map_and_rqs; >>       } >>       if (blk_mq_is_sbitmap_shared(q->tag_set->flags)) { >>           ret = blk_mq_init_sched_shared_sbitmap(q); >>           if (ret) >> -            goto err_free_tags; >> +            goto err_free_map_and_rqs; >>       } >>       ret = e->ops.init_sched(q, e); >> @@ -645,8 +645,8 @@ int blk_mq_init_sched(struct request_queue *q, >> struct elevator_type *e) >>   err_free_sbitmap: >>       if (blk_mq_is_sbitmap_shared(q->tag_set->flags)) >>           blk_mq_exit_sched_shared_sbitmap(q); >> -err_free_tags: >>       blk_mq_sched_free_requests(q); >> +err_free_map_and_rqs: >>       blk_mq_sched_tags_teardown(q); >>       q->elevator = NULL; >>       return ret; >> > This is not only a rename, but it also moves the location of the label. > Is that intended? > If so it needs some documentation why this is safe. Yeah, I think you're right. The final code in the series looks correct, but this is a transient breakage. I'll fix it. Thanks, John