Hi,
在 2025/07/23 9:46, Damien Le Moal 写道:
On 7/22/25 4:24 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Introduce a new spinlock in elevator_queue, and switch dd->lock to
use the new lock. There are no functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
block/elevator.c | 1 +
block/elevator.h | 4 ++--
block/mq-deadline.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c
index ab22542e6cf0..91df270d9d91 100644
--- a/block/elevator.c
+++ b/block/elevator.c
@@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ struct elevator_queue *elevator_alloc(struct request_queue *q,
eq->type = e;
kobject_init(&eq->kobj, &elv_ktype);
mutex_init(&eq->sysfs_lock);
+ spin_lock_init(&eq->lock);
hash_init(eq->hash);
return eq;
diff --git a/block/elevator.h b/block/elevator.h
index a07ce773a38f..cbbac4f7825c 100644
--- a/block/elevator.h
+++ b/block/elevator.h
@@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ struct request *elv_rqhash_find(struct request_queue *q, sector_t offset);
/*
* each queue has an elevator_queue associated with it
*/
-struct elevator_queue
-{
+struct elevator_queue {
struct elevator_type *type;
void *elevator_data;
struct kobject kobj;
struct mutex sysfs_lock;
+ spinlock_t lock;
unsigned long flags;
DECLARE_HASHTABLE(hash, ELV_HASH_BITS);
};
I wonder if the above should not be its own patch, and the remaining below
staying in this patch as that match exactly the commit title.
I think you mean *should be it's own patch*. I don't have preference and
I can do that in the next version :)
Thanks,
Kuai
