[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Move bv_offset/bv_len update after bio_endio in __end_that_request_first
On Thu, Jan 01 2004, Christophe Saout wrote:
> Hi!
> Can we move the update of bio_index(bio)->bv_offset and bv_len after the
> bio_endio call in __end_that_request_first please (if a bvec is partially
> completed)?
> The bi_idx is currently also updated after the bio_endio call.
> Currently the bi_end_io function cannot exactly determine whether a bvec
> was completed or not.
> Think of the following situation:
> bv_offset is 0 and bv_len is 4096, now the driver completes 2048 bytes of
> that bvec.
> At the moment bv_offset and bv_len are set to 2048 first. The bi_end_io
> function can't distinguish between this situation and the situation where
> bv_offset and bv_len were 2048 before and that bvec was completed (because
> bi_idx is incremented afterwards).
> This shouldn't break any user since most users are waiting for the whole
> bio to complete with if (bio->bi_size > 0) return 1;.
> I need this because I want to release buffers as soon as possible. The
> incoming bio can get split by my driver due to problems allocating buffers.
> If the partial bio returns and can't release its buffers immediately the
> whole thing might deadlock.
> That's why I need to know exactly how many and which bvecs were completed
> in my bi_end_io function.
> Or do you think it is safer to count backwards using bi_vcnt and bi_size?

I'm inclined to thinking that, indeed. Those two fields have a more well
established usage, so I think you'll be better off doing that in the
long run.

Jens Axboe

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.049 / U:3.480 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site