On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:37:00AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:08:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > bcache creates large bios internally, and then splits them according to
> > the device requirements before it sends them down. If a lower level
> > device tr
Tejun,
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:47:46PM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
>> You are changing the meaning of __bio_clone() here. In old code, the
>> number of io_vecs, bi_idx, bi_vcnt are preserved. But in this modified
>> code, you are map
Kent,
>> --
>> You are changing the meaning of __bio_clone() here. In old code, the
>> number of io_vecs, bi_idx, bi_vcnt are preserved. But in this modified
>> code, you are mapping bio_src's bi_iovec[bi_idx] to bio_dests
>> bi_iovec[0] and also restricting the number of allocated io_vecs of
>> t
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:08:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> bcache creates large bios internally, and then splits them according to
> the device requirements before it sends them down. If a lower level
> device tries to clone the bio, and the original bio had more than
> BIO_MAX_PAGE
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:47:46PM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
> You are changing the meaning of __bio_clone() here. In old code, the
> number of io_vecs, bi_idx, bi_vcnt are preserved. But in this modified
> code, you are mapping bio_src's bi_iovec[bi_idx] to bio_dests
> bi_iovec[0] and also
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> In particular, if this change breaks anything then the new bio_split()
> _will_ break things.
>
> We need to be clear about our interfaces; in this case bi_idx and
> bi_vcnt, in particular. Either this is a safe change, or it's not. If
> no
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:47:46PM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
> Tejun,
>
> This is changing the semantics of the clone. Sorry, I missed this
> thread and replied separately. But anyway, replying it again here:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 04:30:07PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:08:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > @@ -459,10 +460,10 @@ void __bio_clone(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_src)
> > bio->bi_sector = bio_src->bi_sector;
> > bio->bi_bdev = bio_src->bi_
Tejun,
This is changing the semantics of the clone. Sorry, I missed this
thread and replied separately. But anyway, replying it again here:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>> Hi Kent
>>
>> When you change the se
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:08:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> @@ -459,10 +460,10 @@ void __bio_clone(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_src)
> bio->bi_sector = bio_src->bi_sector;
> bio->bi_bdev = bio_src->bi_bdev;
> bio->bi_flags |= 1 << BIO_CLONED;
> + bio->bi_fla
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Hi Kent
>
> When you change the semantics of an exported function, rename that
> function. There may be external modules that use __bio_clone and this
> change could silently introduce bugs in them.
>
> Otherwise, the patchset l
Hi Kent
When you change the semantics of an exported function, rename that
function. There may be external modules that use __bio_clone and this
change could silently introduce bugs in them.
Otherwise, the patchset looks fine.
Mikulas
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> bcache crea
bcache creates large bios internally, and then splits them according to
the device requirements before it sends them down. If a lower level
device tries to clone the bio, and the original bio had more than
BIO_MAX_PAGES, the clone will fail unecessarily.
We can fix this by only cloning the bio vec
13 matches
Mail list logo