[v2,0/5] A few cleanup and bugfix patches for blk-iocost

  This series contain a few patch to correct comment, correct trace of
vtime_rate and so on. More detail can be found in the respective
changelogs.

---
v2:
 Thanks Tejun for review and comment!
 Add Acked-by tag from Tejun.
 Correct description in patch 3/5 and 4/5.
 Drop "blk-iocost: Avoid to call current_hweight_max if iocg->inuse
== iocg->active"
 Drop "blk-iocost: Remove redundant initialization of struct ioc_gq"
 Drop "blk-iocost: Get ioc_now inside weight_updated"
---

Kemeng Shi (5):
  blk-iocost: Fix typo in comment
  blk-iocost: Reset vtime_base_rate in ioc_refresh_params
  blk-iocost: Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate
  blk-iocost: Remove vrate member in struct ioc_now
  blk-iocost: Correct comment in blk_iocost_init

 block/blk-iocost.c            | 16 +++++++++-------
 include/trace/events/iocost.h |  4 ++--
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
  

Friendly ping

on 10/18/2022 8:19 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> This series contain a few patch to correct comment, correct trace of
> vtime_rate and so on. More detail can be found in the respective
> changelogs.
> 
> ---
> v2:
>  Thanks Tejun for review and comment!
>  Add Acked-by tag from Tejun.
>  Correct description in patch 3/5 and 4/5.
>  Drop "blk-iocost: Avoid to call current_hweight_max if iocg->inuse
> == iocg->active"
>  Drop "blk-iocost: Remove redundant initialization of struct ioc_gq"
>  Drop "blk-iocost: Get ioc_now inside weight_updated"
> ---
> 
> Kemeng Shi (5):
>   blk-iocost: Fix typo in comment
>   blk-iocost: Reset vtime_base_rate in ioc_refresh_params
>   blk-iocost: Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate
>   blk-iocost: Remove vrate member in struct ioc_now
>   blk-iocost: Correct comment in blk_iocost_init
> 
>  block/blk-iocost.c            | 16 +++++++++-------
>  include/trace/events/iocost.h |  4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
  

Hi jens,
on 10/18/2022 8:19 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> This series contain a few patch to correct comment, correct trace of
> vtime_rate and so on. More detail can be found in the respective
> changelogs.
> 
> ---
> v2:
>  Thanks Tejun for review and comment!
>  Add Acked-by tag from Tejun.
>  Correct description in patch 3/5 and 4/5.
>  Drop "blk-iocost: Avoid to call current_hweight_max if iocg->inuse
> == iocg->active"
>  Drop "blk-iocost: Remove redundant initialization of struct ioc_gq"
>  Drop "blk-iocost: Get ioc_now inside weight_updated"
> ---
> 
> Kemeng Shi (5):
>   blk-iocost: Fix typo in comment
>   blk-iocost: Reset vtime_base_rate in ioc_refresh_params
>   blk-iocost: Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate
>   blk-iocost: Remove vrate member in struct ioc_now
>   blk-iocost: Correct comment in blk_iocost_init
> 
>  block/blk-iocost.c            | 16 +++++++++-------
>  include/trace/events/iocost.h |  4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Could you apply this patchset?
By the way, my apply for an cloud variant of email was just passed
a few days ago. Is this mail still in spam?

Thanks.
  

On 11/30/22 6:45?PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> 
> Hi jens,
> on 10/18/2022 8:19 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>> This series contain a few patch to correct comment, correct trace of
>> vtime_rate and so on. More detail can be found in the respective
>> changelogs.
>>
>> ---
>> v2:
>>  Thanks Tejun for review and comment!
>>  Add Acked-by tag from Tejun.
>>  Correct description in patch 3/5 and 4/5.
>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Avoid to call current_hweight_max if iocg->inuse
>> == iocg->active"
>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Remove redundant initialization of struct ioc_gq"
>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Get ioc_now inside weight_updated"
>> ---
>>
>> Kemeng Shi (5):
>>   blk-iocost: Fix typo in comment
>>   blk-iocost: Reset vtime_base_rate in ioc_refresh_params
>>   blk-iocost: Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate
>>   blk-iocost: Remove vrate member in struct ioc_now
>>   blk-iocost: Correct comment in blk_iocost_init
>>
>>  block/blk-iocost.c            | 16 +++++++++-------
>>  include/trace/events/iocost.h |  4 ++--
>>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> Could you apply this patchset?
> By the way, my apply for an cloud variant of email was just passed
> a few days ago. Is this mail still in spam?

This one wasn't, but I've seen the huaweicloud.com emails fail
the same origination checks in the past.
  

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:19:27 +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> This series contain a few patch to correct comment, correct trace of
> vtime_rate and so on. More detail can be found in the respective
> changelogs.
> 

Applied, thanks!

[1/5] blk-iocost: Fix typo in comment
      commit: e12d34fce7652a870fac62e9749a6623883d6fd8
[2/5] blk-iocost: Reset vtime_base_rate in ioc_refresh_params
      commit: c81d97a61c8c3c25a576c3db4c4dd34316256f05
[3/5] blk-iocost: Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate
      commit: 0c0d362dc97d19d898219c13a357e167a9ee77ee
[4/5] blk-iocost: Remove vrate member in struct ioc_now
      commit: f44ed8722034ef7d214fa121ae2402100a3590e1
[5/5] blk-iocost: Correct comment in blk_iocost_init
      commit: b4c0482bfe89cd6c4f030314c86aae35642c44a5

Best regards,
  

on 12/1/2022 9:46 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/30/22 6:45?PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>
>> Hi jens,
>> on 10/18/2022 8:19 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>> This series contain a few patch to correct comment, correct trace of
>>> vtime_rate and so on. More detail can be found in the respective
>>> changelogs.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>>  Thanks Tejun for review and comment!
>>>  Add Acked-by tag from Tejun.
>>>  Correct description in patch 3/5 and 4/5.
>>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Avoid to call current_hweight_max if iocg->inuse
>>> == iocg->active"
>>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Remove redundant initialization of struct ioc_gq"
>>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Get ioc_now inside weight_updated"
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Kemeng Shi (5):
>>>   blk-iocost: Fix typo in comment
>>>   blk-iocost: Reset vtime_base_rate in ioc_refresh_params
>>>   blk-iocost: Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate
>>>   blk-iocost: Remove vrate member in struct ioc_now
>>>   blk-iocost: Correct comment in blk_iocost_init
>>>
>>>  block/blk-iocost.c            | 16 +++++++++-------
>>>  include/trace/events/iocost.h |  4 ++--
>>>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> Could you apply this patchset?
>> By the way, my apply for an cloud variant of email was just passed
>> a few days ago. Is this mail still in spam?
> 
> This one wasn't, but I've seen the huaweicloud.com emails fail
> the same origination checks in the past.
I'm not sure if was there any fix to huaweicloud.com email. I will
use this huaweicloud emails to minimize the trouble before any
better solution is found. Sorry for the inconvenience.
  

On 11/30/22 7:20 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> on 12/1/2022 9:46 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/30/22 6:45?PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi jens,
>>> on 10/18/2022 8:19 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>> This series contain a few patch to correct comment, correct trace of
>>>> vtime_rate and so on. More detail can be found in the respective
>>>> changelogs.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2:
>>>>  Thanks Tejun for review and comment!
>>>>  Add Acked-by tag from Tejun.
>>>>  Correct description in patch 3/5 and 4/5.
>>>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Avoid to call current_hweight_max if iocg->inuse
>>>> == iocg->active"
>>>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Remove redundant initialization of struct ioc_gq"
>>>>  Drop "blk-iocost: Get ioc_now inside weight_updated"
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Kemeng Shi (5):
>>>>   blk-iocost: Fix typo in comment
>>>>   blk-iocost: Reset vtime_base_rate in ioc_refresh_params
>>>>   blk-iocost: Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate
>>>>   blk-iocost: Remove vrate member in struct ioc_now
>>>>   blk-iocost: Correct comment in blk_iocost_init
>>>>
>>>>  block/blk-iocost.c            | 16 +++++++++-------
>>>>  include/trace/events/iocost.h |  4 ++--
>>>>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>> Could you apply this patchset?
>>> By the way, my apply for an cloud variant of email was just passed
>>> a few days ago. Is this mail still in spam?
>>
>> This one wasn't, but I've seen the huaweicloud.com emails fail
>> the same origination checks in the past.
> I'm not sure if was there any fix to huaweicloud.com email. I will
> use this huaweicloud emails to minimize the trouble before any
> better solution is found. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks, I'll let you know if I run into issues with the cloud
email.