On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:55:20PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 06/27/18 16:21, Ming Lei wrote:
> > What we need to do is to only copy the 1st bvec for WRITE_SAME, your patch
> > changes to copy (bio->bi_iter.bi_size / block size) bvecs, then memory
> > corruption
> > may be triggered. So bi
On 06/27/18 16:21, Ming Lei wrote:
What we need to do is to only copy the 1st bvec for WRITE_SAME, your patch
changes to copy (bio->bi_iter.bi_size / block size) bvecs, then memory
corruption
may be triggered. So bio_for_each_segment() can't be used here.
Has it been considered to use memcpy()
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:48:06AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 06/26/18 18:13, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:26:24PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > There is no good reason to use different code paths for different
> > > request operations. Hence remove the switch/case s
On 06/26/18 18:13, Ming Lei wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:26:24PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
There is no good reason to use different code paths for different
request operations. Hence remove the switch/case statement from
bio_clone_bioset().
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche
Cc: Christoph
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:26:24PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> There is no good reason to use different code paths for different
> request operations. Hence remove the switch/case statement from
> bio_clone_bioset().
>
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig
> Cc: Ming Lei
There is no good reason to use different code paths for different
request operations. Hence remove the switch/case statement from
bio_clone_bioset().
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche
Cc: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Ming Lei
---
block/bio.c | 15 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 dele
