On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:09:03AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:59:51PM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > @@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, > > struct bio **next, > > } > > > > while (old_chain && (total < len)) { > > - tmp = bio_kmalloc(gfpmask, old_chain->bi_max_vecs); > > + tmp = bio_clone_kmalloc(old_chain, gfpmask); > > if (!tmp) > > goto err_out; > > > > @@ -751,13 +751,9 @@ static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, > > struct bio **next, > > if (!bp) > > goto err_out; > > > > - __bio_clone(tmp, &bp->bio1); > > - > > This effectively swaps the order of bio_split() and __bio_clone(). Is > that safe? Also, please cc the maintainer.
Now that I look at that code some more, I'm not sure it was quite right before - that or I don't follow how it's supposed to work. That bio_split() effectively does its own clone, so it seems to me the bio_kmalloc()/bio_clone_kmalloc() should only be happening in the non split case. Also, there's a bio_chain_clone in drivers/block/osdblk.c that looks like it's doing something similar, probably we should have some generic code for this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
