| Message ID | 20181025211039.11559-17-axboe@kernel.dk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | blk-mq driver conversions and legacy path removal | expand |
On 10/25/18 11:10 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > We only support mq devices now. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> > --- > block/blk-cgroup.c | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) > Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com> Cheers, Hannes
Hi Jens, On 25/10/18 23:10, Jens Axboe wrote: [...] > @@ -1487,8 +1485,6 @@ int blkcg_activate_policy(struct request_queue *q, > out_bypass_end: > if (q->mq_ops) > blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q); > - else > - blk_queue_bypass_end(q); > > Now that we only have mq, do we still need all these checks for q->mq_ops?
On 10/29/18 5:00 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On 25/10/18 23:10, Jens Axboe wrote: > [...] >> @@ -1487,8 +1485,6 @@ int blkcg_activate_policy(struct request_queue *q, >> out_bypass_end: >> if (q->mq_ops) >> blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q); >> - else >> - blk_queue_bypass_end(q); > >> >> > > Now that we only have mq, do we still need all these checks for q->mq_ops? We need it for the cases where we can be passing in a stacked driver or an mq driver, or for cases where we explicitly register mq attributes, and that sort of thing.
On 29/10/18 15:23, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/29/18 5:00 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >> Hi Jens, >> >> On 25/10/18 23:10, Jens Axboe wrote: >> [...] >>> @@ -1487,8 +1485,6 @@ int blkcg_activate_policy(struct request_queue *q, >>> out_bypass_end: >>> if (q->mq_ops) >>> blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q); >>> - else >>> - blk_queue_bypass_end(q); >> >>> >>> >> >> Now that we only have mq, do we still need all these checks for q->mq_ops? > > We need it for the cases where we can be passing in a stacked driver > or an mq driver, or for cases where we explicitly register mq attributes, > and that sort of thing. > Ah ok. Guess we'll have to live with it then. Johannes
On 10/29/18 8:25 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On 29/10/18 15:23, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 10/29/18 5:00 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >>> Hi Jens, >>> >>> On 25/10/18 23:10, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> [...] >>>> @@ -1487,8 +1485,6 @@ int blkcg_activate_policy(struct request_queue *q, >>>> out_bypass_end: >>>> if (q->mq_ops) >>>> blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q); >>>> - else >>>> - blk_queue_bypass_end(q); >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Now that we only have mq, do we still need all these checks for q->mq_ops? >> >> We need it for the cases where we can be passing in a stacked driver >> or an mq driver, or for cases where we explicitly register mq attributes, >> and that sort of thing. >> > > Ah ok. Guess we'll have to live with it then. At this point the check should be equivalent to queue_is_rq_based(), fwiw.
diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c index 992da5592c6e..5f10d755ec52 100644 --- a/block/blk-cgroup.c +++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c @@ -1446,8 +1446,6 @@ int blkcg_activate_policy(struct request_queue *q, if (q->mq_ops) blk_mq_freeze_queue(q); - else - blk_queue_bypass_start(q); pd_prealloc: if (!pd_prealloc) { pd_prealloc = pol->pd_alloc_fn(GFP_KERNEL, q->node); @@ -1487,8 +1485,6 @@ int blkcg_activate_policy(struct request_queue *q, out_bypass_end: if (q->mq_ops) blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q); - else - blk_queue_bypass_end(q); if (pd_prealloc) pol->pd_free_fn(pd_prealloc); return ret; @@ -1513,8 +1509,6 @@ void blkcg_deactivate_policy(struct request_queue *q, if (q->mq_ops) blk_mq_freeze_queue(q); - else - blk_queue_bypass_start(q); spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock); @@ -1533,8 +1527,6 @@ void blkcg_deactivate_policy(struct request_queue *q, if (q->mq_ops) blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q); - else - blk_queue_bypass_end(q); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blkcg_deactivate_policy);
We only support mq devices now. Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> --- block/blk-cgroup.c | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)