[PATCH] nvme-pci : redundancies in nvme_alloc_queue and nvme_init_queue

Signed-off-by: Irvin Cote <redacted>
---
 drivers/nvme/host/pci.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
index 32244582fdb0..49ae26980a0f 100644
--- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c

@@ -1533,9 +1533,6 @@ static int nvme_alloc_queue(struct nvme_dev *dev, int qid, int depth)
 	nvmeq->dev = dev;
 	spin_lock_init(&nvmeq->sq_lock);
 	spin_lock_init(&nvmeq->cq_poll_lock);
-	nvmeq->cq_head = 0;
-	nvmeq->cq_phase = 1;
-	nvmeq->q_db = &dev->dbs[qid * 2 * dev->db_stride];
 	nvmeq->qid = qid;
 	dev->ctrl.queue_count++;
 

-- 
2.39.2

On 5/20/23 6:02 PM, Irvin Cote wrote:

Please put an actual commit message in here, any commit should have
an explanation of WHY the change is being made. Your subject line
is NOT enough, detail exactly why this is redundant.

From a quick look the patch does look fine, but I'm not going to
ack a patch that doesn't have a good commit message.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Hi, I am really confused I had written one and apparently it didn't go
through, my apologies.
I will resend it

On Sat, 20 May 2023 at 22:48, Jens Axboe [off-list ref] wrote:

On 5/20/23 6:02 PM, Irvin Cote wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Irvin Cote <redacted>
---
 drivers/nvme/host/pci.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
index 32244582fdb0..49ae26980a0f 100644
--- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c

@@ -1533,9 +1533,6 @@ static int nvme_alloc_queue(struct nvme_dev *dev, int qid, int depth)
      nvmeq->dev = dev;
      spin_lock_init(&nvmeq->sq_lock);
      spin_lock_init(&nvmeq->cq_poll_lock);
-     nvmeq->cq_head = 0;
-     nvmeq->cq_phase = 1;
-     nvmeq->q_db = &dev->dbs[qid * 2 * dev->db_stride];
      nvmeq->qid = qid;
      dev->ctrl.queue_count++;

Please put an actual commit message in here, any commit should have
an explanation of WHY the change is being made. Your subject line
is NOT enough, detail exactly why this is redundant.

From a quick look the patch does look fine, but I'm not going to
ack a patch that doesn't have a good commit message.

--
Jens Axboe