[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH] dm-rwlock.patch (Re: 2.6.4-rc1-mm1: queue-congestion-dm-implementation patch)

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:43:14, Joe Thornber wrote:
> The patch below (applies to 2.6.4-rc2-mm1) is larger than your patch
> but I think the locking semantics are more intuitive.
> 
> Thoughts ?

Ah, one more minor thing:

> @@ -563,15 +584,16 @@ static int dm_request(request_queue_t *q
>  static int dm_any_congested(void *congested_data, int bdi_bits)
>  {
>  	int r;
> -	struct mapped_device *md = congested_data;
> +	struct mapped_device *md = (struct mapped_device *) congested_data;
> +	struct dm_table *map = dm_get_table(md);
>  
> -	read_lock(&md->maplock);
> -	if (md->map == NULL || test_bit(DMF_BLOCK_IO, &md->flags))
> +	if (!map || test_bit(DMF_BLOCK_IO, &md->flags))
> +		/* FIXME: shouldn't suspended count a congested ? */
>  		r = bdi_bits;

I didn't test for DMF_SUSPENDED since it is only set when DMF_BLOCK_IO
is set too. And "r = bdi_bits" is the return value for "congested".
So I think that FIXME can be removed ?

Mike.