Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] blk-mq-debugfs: Show busy requests

[Eduardo Valentin]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:45:54PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 14:43 -0700, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:30:49PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > +static void hctx_show_busy(struct request *rq, void *data, bool reserved)
> > > +{
> > > + const struct show_busy_params *params = data;
> > > +
> > > + if (blk_mq_map_queue(rq->q, rq->mq_ctx->cpu) == params->hctx &&
> > > +     test_bit(REQ_ATOM_STARTED, &rq->atomic_flags))
> > > +         __blk_mq_debugfs_rq_show(params->m,
> > > +                                  list_entry_rq(&rq->queuelist));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int hctx_busy_show(void *data, struct seq_file *m)
> > > +{
> > > + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = data;
> > > + struct show_busy_params params = { .m = m, .hctx = hctx };
> > > +
> > > + blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(hctx->queue->tag_set, hctx_show_busy, &params);
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Why not making the two above one single function?
> > hctx_busy_show vs. hctx_show_busy seams a bit confusing, and I could not see
> > where they get reused in your patch set..
> 
> Hello Eduardo,
> 
> If I would open-code blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() then I would be able to 
> implement
> the above two functions as a single function. However, 
> blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter()
> expects a function pointer as third argument. That's why the above 
> functionality
> has been split over two functions.

Yeah, my bad here. I misread the functions. But still the naming doesnt seam
too suggestive? how about s/hctx_show_busy/hctx_busy_entry/g?

> 
> Bart.

-- 
All the best,
Eduardo Valentin