Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 1

[Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>]

On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:50 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 00:27 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > This issue can be fixed by reverting d250bf4e776ff09d5 ("blk-mq: only iterate over
> > > inflight requests in blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter").
> > > 
> > > This patch looks wrong, because 'blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT'
> > > isn't completely same with 'blk_mq_request_started(req)'.
> > 
> > Please test the following change instead of reverting the commit mentioned
> > above:
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> > index 09b2ee6694fb..25a0583d8b4c 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> > @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
> >          * test and set the bit before assining ->rqs[].
> >          */
> >         rq = tags->rqs[bitnr];
> > -       if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT)
> > +       if (rq && blk_mq_rq_state(rq) != MQ_RQ_IDLE)
> >                 iter_data->fn(rq, iter_data->data, reserved);
> > 
> >         return true;
> > 
> 
> I just sent out a similar patch on list, but use blk_mq_request_started()
> instead.
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=153322823307754&w=2

Hello Ming,

Since both patches are functionally equivalent, I'm fine with either version.

Bart.