On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:31:21PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > Now ->carryover_bytes[] and ->carryover_ios[] only covers limit/config > update. > > Actually the carryover bytes/ios can be carried to ->bytes_disp[] and > ->io_disp[] directly, since the carryover is one-shot thing and only valid > in current slice. > > Then we can remove the two fields and simplify code much. > > Type of ->bytes_disp[] and ->io_disp[] has to change as signed because the > two fields may become negative when updating limits or config, but both are > big enough for holding bytes/ios dispatched in single slice > > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. -- tejun
