On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:22:36 -0500 Chris Mason
wrote:
> > Yup - that should actually be safe for all the existing bio_clone() users
> > actually, I audited all of them - because normally you're not going to
> > complete
> > the original bio until the clone finishes.
>
> I'd say we need an ack
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 04:25:45PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:57:34)
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:22:36PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
>
> [ ... nods, thanks! ... ]
>
> > OTOH - with regards to just the
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:57:34)
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:22:36PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
[ ... nods, thanks! ... ]
> OTOH - with regards to just the ordering requirements, the more I look at
> various code the less accidental
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:22:36PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
> > Yup - that should actually be safe for all the existing bio_clone() users
> > actually, I audited all of them - because normally you're not going to
> > complete
> > the original bio
Quoting Mike Snitzer (2013-11-06 15:36:40)
> On Wed, Nov 06 2013 at 3:22pm -0500,
> Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
> > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think the concept of bio ownership is still much too
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:31:02PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Hey Kent,
>
> Digging a bit in the LKML archive I think this patch is in response to
> this thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/6/27
That thread I saw, Jens told me there was another one though
> Might be good to give context for
On Wed, Nov 06 2013 at 3:22pm -0500,
Chris Mason wrote:
> Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the concept of bio ownership is still much too weak, at least
> > > for established users like MD and DM.
Hey Kent,
Digging a bit in the LKML archive I think this patch is in response to
this thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/6/27
Might be good to give context for which reported problem(s) are being
fixed by this patch.
On Tue, Nov 05 2013 at 10:48pm -0500,
Kent Overstreet wrote:
> This patch
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-05 22:48:41)
> > > This patch reverts the default behaviour introduced by
> > > 9fc6286f347d00528adcdcf12396d220f47492ed - bio_clone_biovec() no clonger
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-05 22:48:41)
> > This patch reverts the default behaviour introduced by
> > 9fc6286f347d00528adcdcf12396d220f47492ed - bio_clone_biovec() no clonger
> > shares the source bio's biovec, cloning the
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-05 22:48:41)
> This patch reverts the default behaviour introduced by
> 9fc6286f347d00528adcdcf12396d220f47492ed - bio_clone_biovec() no clonger
> shares the source bio's biovec, cloning the biovec is once again the
> default.
>
> Instead, we add a new
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:02:19PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>
>> > Chris, Olaf, can you two in particular test this? I have tested the bounce
>> > buffer code (and
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:02:19PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com wrote:
Chris, Olaf, can you two in particular test this? I have tested the bounce
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-05 22:48:41)
This patch reverts the default behaviour introduced by
9fc6286f347d00528adcdcf12396d220f47492ed - bio_clone_biovec() no clonger
shares the source bio's biovec, cloning the biovec is once again the
default.
Instead, we add a new
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-05 22:48:41)
This patch reverts the default behaviour introduced by
9fc6286f347d00528adcdcf12396d220f47492ed - bio_clone_biovec() no clonger
shares the source bio's biovec, cloning the biovec is
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-05 22:48:41)
This patch reverts the default behaviour introduced by
9fc6286f347d00528adcdcf12396d220f47492ed - bio_clone_biovec() no clonger
Hey Kent,
Digging a bit in the LKML archive I think this patch is in response to
this thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/6/27
Might be good to give context for which reported problem(s) are being
fixed by this patch.
On Tue, Nov 05 2013 at 10:48pm -0500,
Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com
On Wed, Nov 06 2013 at 3:22pm -0500,
Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com wrote:
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
I think the concept of bio ownership is still much too weak, at least
for established users
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:31:02PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
Hey Kent,
Digging a bit in the LKML archive I think this patch is in response to
this thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/6/27
That thread I saw, Jens told me there was another one though
Might be good to give context for
Quoting Mike Snitzer (2013-11-06 15:36:40)
On Wed, Nov 06 2013 at 3:22pm -0500,
Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com wrote:
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
I think the concept of bio ownership is still
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:22:36PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
Yup - that should actually be safe for all the existing bio_clone() users
actually, I audited all of them - because normally you're not going to
complete
the original bio until the
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:57:34)
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:22:36PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
[ ... nods, thanks! ... ]
OTOH - with regards to just the ordering requirements, the more I look at
various code the less accidental the
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 04:25:45PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:57:34)
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:22:36PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
[ ... nods, thanks! ... ]
OTOH - with regards to just the ordering
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:22:36 -0500 Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com
wrote:
Yup - that should actually be safe for all the existing bio_clone() users
actually, I audited all of them - because normally you're not going to
complete
the original bio until the clone finishes.
I'd say
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:02:19PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>
> > Chris, Olaf, can you two in particular test this? I have tested the bounce
> > buffer code (and bcache), but Jens told me today there was an md bug that I
> >
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Chris, Olaf, can you two in particular test this? I have tested the bounce
> buffer code (and bcache), but Jens told me today there was an md bug that I
> _still_ can't find any emails about so I'm not sure what to test for that.
This patch reverts the default behaviour introduced by
9fc6286f347d00528adcdcf12396d220f47492ed - bio_clone_biovec() no clonger
shares the source bio's biovec, cloning the biovec is once again the
default.
Instead, we add a new bio_clone_biovec_fast(), which creates a clone
that shares the
This patch reverts the default behaviour introduced by
9fc6286f347d00528adcdcf12396d220f47492ed - bio_clone_biovec() no clonger
shares the source bio's biovec, cloning the biovec is once again the
default.
Instead, we add a new bio_clone_biovec_fast(), which creates a clone
that shares the
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com wrote:
Chris, Olaf, can you two in particular test this? I have tested the bounce
buffer code (and bcache), but Jens told me today there was an md bug that I
_still_ can't find any emails about so I'm not sure what to test
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:02:19PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Kent Overstreet k...@daterainc.com wrote:
Chris, Olaf, can you two in particular test this? I have tested the bounce
buffer code (and bcache), but Jens told me today there was an md bug
30 matches
Mail list logo