Re: [PATCH 1/2] bfq: remove some useless logic of bfq_update_next_in_service()

[Paolo Valente]

> Il giorno 10 feb 2021, alle ore 16:21, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> 
> On 2/10/21 8:20 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:13:29PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Il giorno 29 gen 2021, alle ore 11:51, Chunguang Xu <brookxu.cn@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Chunguang Xu <brookxu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 
>>>> The if statement at the end of the function is obviously useless,
>>>> maybe we can delete it.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for spotting this mistake.
>>> 
>>> Acked-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chunguang Xu <brookxu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> block/bfq-wf2q.c | 3 ---
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/block/bfq-wf2q.c b/block/bfq-wf2q.c
>>>> index 26776bd..070e34a 100644
>>>> --- a/block/bfq-wf2q.c
>>>> +++ b/block/bfq-wf2q.c
>>>> @@ -137,9 +137,6 @@ static bool bfq_update_next_in_service(struct bfq_sched_data *sd,
>>>> 
>>>> 	sd->next_in_service = next_in_service;
>>>> 
>>>> -	if (!next_in_service)
>>>> -		return parent_sched_may_change;
>>>> -
>> 
>> Unless I'm missing something, this has already been fixed here:
>> 
>> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-5.12/block&id=1a23e06cdab2be07cbda460c6417d7de564c48e6
> 
> Yep indeed.
> 

I seemed to remember this patch as well. But my memory is rather weak.

> -- 
> Jens Axboe