From 8993d445df388e3541f48920a2353cfc904b220a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chiara Bruschi <bruschi.chiara@outlook.it>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:21:59 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] block, bfq: fix occurrences of request finish method's old
name
Git-commit: 8993d445df388e3541f48920a2353cfc904b220a
Patch-mainline: v4.16-rc1
References: bsc#1099918
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: 7b9e93616399 ("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>
Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
---
block/bfq-iosched.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 5e6f837f663e..f352b1677143 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -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
- * rq_in_driver, but put_rq_private will not be
+ * We exploit the bfq_finish_request hook to decrement
+ * rq_in_driver, but bfq_finish_request will not be
* invoked on this request. So, to avoid unbalance,
* just start this request, without incrementing
* 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.
*
* As for implementing an exact solution, the
- * put_request hook, if defined, is probably invoked
- * also on this request. So, by exploiting this hook,
- * we could 1) increment rq_in_driver here, and 2)
- * decrement it in put_request. Such a solution would
- * let the value of the counter be always accurate,
- * but it would entail using an extra interface
- * function. This cost seems higher than the benefit,
- * being the frequency of non-elevator-private
+ * bfq_finish_request hook, if defined, is probably
+ * invoked also on this request. So, by exploiting
+ * this hook, we could 1) increment rq_in_driver here,
+ * and 2) decrement it in bfq_finish_request. Such a
+ * solution would let the value of the counter be
+ * always accurate, but it would entail using an extra
+ * interface function. This cost seems higher than the
+ * benefit, being the frequency of non-elevator-private
* requests very low.
*/
goto start_rq;
@@ -4558,7 +4558,7 @@ static void bfq_completed_request(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_data *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--;
@@ -4588,7 +4588,7 @@ static void bfq_finish_request(struct request *rq)
spin_lock_irqsave(&bfqd->lock, flags);
bfq_completed_request(bfqq, bfqd);
- bfq_put_rq_priv_body(bfqq);
+ bfq_finish_request_body(bfqq);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bfqd->lock, flags);
} else {
@@ -4609,7 +4609,7 @@ static void bfq_finish_request(struct request *rq)
bfqg_stats_update_io_remove(bfqq_group(bfqq),
rq->cmd_flags);
}
- bfq_put_rq_priv_body(bfqq);
+ bfq_finish_request_body(bfqq);
}
rq->elv.priv[0] = NULL;
--
2.17.1