Re: [PATCH] block: eliminate ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE

[Jens Axboe]

On 2011-03-29 00:15, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28 2011 at  4:23am -0400,
> Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:56AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> Should blk_kick_flush() process the flush request without calling
>>> elv_insert() -- like is done with open coded list_add() in
>>> blk_insert_flush()?
>>>
>>> Or should blk_insert_flush() use elv_insert() with
>>> ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE too? 
>>
>> Hmmm... I would prefer the latter.  Given that INSERT_REQUEUE and
>> FRONT are no longer different, it would probably be better to use
>> FRONT tho.  The only reason REQUEUE is used there is to avoid kicking
>> the queue from elv_insert(), which is gone now.
> 
> OK, I came up with the following patch.
> 
> Jens, this is just a natural cleanup given the code that resulted from
> the flush-merge and onstack plugging changes coming together.

That looks nice and clean. What kind of testing has been done?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/