OpenE2K
/
linux
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

block, bfq: fix occurrences of request finish method's old name 

Commit '7b9e93616399' ("blk-mq-sched: unify request finished methods")
changed the old name of current bfq_finish_request method, but left it
unchanged elsewhere in the code (related comments, part of function
name bfq_put_rq_priv_body).

This commit fixes all occurrences of the old name of this method by
changing them into the current name.

Fixes: 7b9e936163 ("blk-mq-sched: unify request finished methods")
Reviewed-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Federico Motta <federico@willer.it>
Signed-off-by: Chiara Bruschi <bruschi.chiara@outlook.it>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
This commit is contained in:
Chiara Bruschi 2017-12-18 16:21:59 +00:00 committed by Jens Axboe
parent b4b6cb6135
commit 8993d445df
1 changed files with 13 additions and 13 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

26
block/bfq-iosched.c
View File

@ -3684,8 +3684,8 @@ static struct request *__bfq_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
} }
/* /*
* We exploit the put_rq_private hook to decrement * We exploit the bfq_finish_request hook to decrement
* rq_in_driver, but put_rq_private will not be * rq_in_driver, but bfq_finish_request will not be
* invoked on this request. So, to avoid unbalance, * invoked on this request. So, to avoid unbalance,
* just start this request, without incrementing * just start this request, without incrementing
* rq_in_driver. As a negative consequence, * rq_in_driver. As a negative consequence,
@ -3694,14 +3694,14 @@ static struct request *__bfq_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
* bfq_schedule_dispatch to be invoked uselessly. * bfq_schedule_dispatch to be invoked uselessly.
* *
* As for implementing an exact solution, the * As for implementing an exact solution, the
* put_request hook, if defined, is probably invoked * bfq_finish_request hook, if defined, is probably
* also on this request. So, by exploiting this hook, * invoked also on this request. So, by exploiting
* we could 1) increment rq_in_driver here, and 2) * this hook, we could 1) increment rq_in_driver here,
* decrement it in put_request. Such a solution would * and 2) decrement it in bfq_finish_request. Such a
* let the value of the counter be always accurate, * solution would let the value of the counter be
* but it would entail using an extra interface * always accurate, but it would entail using an extra
* function. This cost seems higher than the benefit, * interface function. This cost seems higher than the
* being the frequency of non-elevator-private * benefit, being the frequency of non-elevator-private
* requests very low. * requests very low.
*/ */
goto start_rq; goto start_rq;
@ -4558,7 +4558,7 @@ static void bfq_completed_request(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_data *bfqd)
bfq_schedule_dispatch(bfqd); bfq_schedule_dispatch(bfqd);
} }
static void bfq_put_rq_priv_body(struct bfq_queue *bfqq) static void bfq_finish_request_body(struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
{ {
bfqq->allocated--; bfqq->allocated--;
@ -4588,7 +4588,7 @@ static void bfq_finish_request(struct request *rq)
spin_lock_irqsave(&bfqd->lock, flags); spin_lock_irqsave(&bfqd->lock, flags);
bfq_completed_request(bfqq, bfqd); bfq_completed_request(bfqq, bfqd);
bfq_put_rq_priv_body(bfqq); bfq_finish_request_body(bfqq);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bfqd->lock, flags); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bfqd->lock, flags);
} else { } else {
@ -4609,7 +4609,7 @@ static void bfq_finish_request(struct request *rq)
bfqg_stats_update_io_remove(bfqq_group(bfqq), bfqg_stats_update_io_remove(bfqq_group(bfqq),
rq->cmd_flags); rq->cmd_flags);
} }
bfq_put_rq_priv_body(bfqq); bfq_finish_request_body(bfqq);
} }
rq->elv.priv[0] = NULL; rq->elv.priv[0] = NULL;