lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/2]block: handle merged discard request
On Fri, Aug 17 2012 at 11:47pm -0400,
Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com> wrote:

> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Mike> Could be I've wasted a few hours by rebasing these patches...
> Mike> regardless, it would be great if you could share what your plans
> Mike> are.
>
> Heh, I worked on syncing my patch queue up to Jens' and James' trees
> this afternoon. But I didn't quite finish the block stuff, mainly due to
> some conflicts with a few topology changes I also have pending.
>
> I'll take a look at your series. Maybe I'll swap things around and put
> the topology changes on top instead of below. Leverage some of the work
> you did...

OK, just FYI, I had to change bio_has_data() to test bio->bi_vcnt
(rather than bio->bi_io_vec != NULL) because a discard bio has a
non-NULL bio->bi_io_vec (likely points to the bio->bi_inline_vecs but I
didn't check yet).

But I haven't put my finger on _why_ a discard bio has bio->bi_io_vec
(but given my use of DM, bio comes from bio_alloc_bioset, and DM passes
original bio->bi_max_vecs for nr_iovecs).

Anyway, this bio_has_data() change seemed reasonable considering
bio_data() checks bio->bi_vcnt.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-20 16:41    [W:0.074 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site