On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:05:06AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > > This is prep work for killing bi_destructor - previously, pktcdvd had
> > > its own pkt_bio_alloc which was basically duplication bio_kmalloc(),
> > > necessitating its own bi_destructor im
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > This is prep work for killing bi_destructor - previously, pktcdvd had
> > its own pkt_bio_alloc which was basically duplication bio_kmalloc(),
> > necessitating its own bi_destructor implementation.
>
> How was this tested?
I have now tested it and it wo
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:32:47PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:37:31AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > This is prep work for killing bi_destructor - previously, pktcdvd had
> > its own pkt_bio_alloc which was basically duplication bio_kmalloc(),
> > necessitating its own
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:37:31AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> This is prep work for killing bi_destructor - previously, pktcdvd had
> its own pkt_bio_alloc which was basically duplication bio_kmalloc(),
> necessitating its own bi_destructor implementation.
How was this tested?
--
tejun
--
T
This is prep work for killing bi_destructor - previously, pktcdvd had
its own pkt_bio_alloc which was basically duplication bio_kmalloc(),
necessitating its own bi_destructor implementation.
v5: Un-reorder some functions, to make the patch easier to review
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet
CC: Pete
5 matches
Mail list logo