[Bionic,1/3] block, bfq: fix occurrences of request finish method's old name

Message ID 20180705132410.5723-2-jesse.sung@canonical.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • BFQ fixes
Related show

Commit Message

Wen-chien Jesse Sung July 5, 2018, 1:24 p.m.
From: Chiara Bruschi <bruschi.chiara@outlook.it>

BugLink: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1780066

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>
(cherry picked from commit 8993d445df388e3541f48920a2353cfc904b220a)
Signed-off-by: Wen-chien Jesse Sung <jesse.sung@canonical.com>
---
 block/bfq-iosched.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Patch

diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index bcb6d21baf12..6da7f7131b95 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -3630,8 +3630,8 @@  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,
@@ -3640,14 +3640,14 @@  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;
@@ -4482,7 +4482,7 @@  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--;
 
@@ -4512,7 +4512,7 @@  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 {
@@ -4533,7 +4533,7 @@  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;