On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:54:11PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 14:49 -0700, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > 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,
> > > > > ¶ms);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + 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?
>
> Hello Eduardo,
>
> Since that function shows information about a single request, how about
> hctx_show_busy_rq()?
Sounds good to me.
>
> Bart.
--
All the best,
Eduardo Valentin
