From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30AED156F45
	for <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 05:48:52 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1763531334; cv=none; b=oE/G/RnEouoNrXQXUe/HmPst4usUd528sINqYgP5djAJPfScH11VQiN6xhxBcy4clV4nOzK5viQcVyjj4i29dAakvMvKaSWXYP/sthygI/AcHiupLISzoGWgb1VnJHcGYGeZd8xg3krKLQ9F5G/qa0LiJO4w/JL6SCe1JwDWesc=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1763531334; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=MWyTMN1zGHXF1YvxUetG9Fta5O0enkbRD5Dh+DM5VbE=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=L1XLfggYhQE+f/EOum47KtqOWmEGHK4RNMjbEzaMVVqJHJVh7zViN9Q+Z/blK70t9+wlYOiGdlHY6HjQR6sJUZnhGwgDPsgKofIyc+uVoO484ZB18ObzEuqQsmh74526PfK2sf/VF3xYY4w5wUc2eX44T+wn918utRIlhQE2iqA=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de
Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407)
	id 7E3C168AFE; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 06:48:48 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 06:48:48 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@purestorage.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: deduplicate empty request list checks in
 nvme_queue_rqs()
Message-ID: <20251119054848.GA20072@lst.de>
References: <20251119021701.3165123-1-csander@purestorage.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20251119021701.3165123-1-csander@purestorage.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:17:00PM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> nvme_queue_rqs() checks that nvmeq is non-NULL before calling
> nvme_submit_cmds() and nvme_submit_cmds() checks that submit_list is
> non-empty before doing anything. A NULL nvmeq means no requests were
> processed from the rqlist in nvme_queue_rqs() since the last call to
> nvme_submit_cmds(), which implies submit_list is empty. So just check
> that submit_list is non-empty before calling nvme_submit_cmds() and drop
> the check for NULL nvmeq.

What is the rationale for this?  I had a hard time understanding the
logic in the new version, so I don't think this helps with readability
at least.