RE: [PATCH RFC v7 02/12] blk-mq: rename blk_mq_update_tag_set_depth()

[Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>]

> > diff --git a/block/mq-deadline.c b/block/mq-deadline.c index
> > 9d75374..bc413dd 100644
> > --- a/block/mq-deadline.c
> > +++ b/block/mq-deadline.c
> > @@ -385,6 +385,8 @@ static struct request *dd_dispatch_request(struct
> > blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> >
> >          spin_lock(&dd->lock);
> >          rq = __dd_dispatch_request(dd);
> > +       if (rq)
> > +               atomic_dec(&rq->mq_hctx->elevator_queued);
>
> Is there any reason why this operation could not be taken outside the
> spinlock? I assume raciness is not a problem with this patch...

No issue if we want to move this outside spinlock.

>
> >          spin_unlock(&dd->lock);
> >
> >          return rq;
> > @@ -574,7 +576,6 @@ static void dd_finish_request(struct request *rq)
> >                          blk_mq_sched_mark_restart_hctx(rq->mq_hctx);
> >                  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dd->zone_lock, flags);
> >          }
> > -       atomic_dec(&rq->mq_hctx->elevator_queued);
> >   }
> >
> >   static bool dd_has_work(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > --
> > 2.9.5
> >
> > Kashyap
> > .#
>
>
> btw, can you provide signed-off-by if you want credit upgraded to Co-
> developed-by?

I will send you merged patch which you can push to your git repo.

Kashyap

>
> Thanks,
> john