On 03/02/2017 01:53 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 09:13:30AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> I was worried about that. How about the below? We need to grab the lock
>> at some point for legacy scheduling, but the ordering should be correct.
> 
> Makes sense, now the locking is consistent with the other place we call
> ioc_exit_icq(). One nit below, and you can add
> 
> Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com>
> 
>> diff --git a/block/blk-ioc.c b/block/blk-ioc.c
>> index b12f9c87b4c3..6fd633b5d567 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-ioc.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-ioc.c
>> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static void ioc_exit_icq(struct io_cq *icq)
>>      icq->flags |= ICQ_EXITED;
>>  }
>>  
>> -/* Release an icq.  Called with both ioc and q locked. */
>> +/* Release an icq.  Called with ioc locked. */
> 
> For ioc_exit_icq(), we have the more explicit comment
> 
> /*
>  * Exit an icq. Called with both ioc and q locked for sq, only ioc locked for
>  * mq.
>  */
> 
> Could you document that here, too?

Done, I've synced the two comments now. Thanks for the review!

-- 
Jens Axboe

Reply via email to