On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 11:32 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/10/18 11:29 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 17:29 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > @@ -313,8 +307,6 @@ int __blk_mq_debugfs_rq_show(struct seq_file *m, > > > struct request *rq) > > > seq_puts(m, ", .rq_flags="); > > > blk_flags_show(m, (__force unsigned int)rq->rq_flags, rqf_name, > > > ARRAY_SIZE(rqf_name)); > > > - seq_puts(m, ", .atomic_flags="); > > > - blk_flags_show(m, rq->atomic_flags, rqaf_name, ARRAY_SIZE(rqaf_name)); > > > seq_printf(m, ", .tag=%d, .internal_tag=%d", rq->tag, > > > rq->internal_tag); > > > if (mq_ops->show_rq) > > > > Whether or not a request has been marked complete is very useful to know. > > Have you > > considered to show the return value of blk_rq_is_complete() in the debugfs > > output? > > Yeah, that's a good point. Let me add that in lieu of the atomic flags that > are being killed. Are you fine with the patch then?
The rest of the patch looks fine to me. This is the only comment I had about this patch. Bart.
