[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH] block: factor out bio_check_eod()

[Jens Axboe]

On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 18 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > >>>>>> End of device check is done twice in __generic_make_request() and it's
> > >>>>>> fully inlined each time.  Factor out bio_check_eod().
> > >>>>> Tejun, yeah I should seperate the cleanups and put them in the upstream
> > >>>>> branch. Will do so and add your signed-off to both of them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Would they be different from the one I just posted?  No big deal either
> > >>>> way.  I'm just basing the zero-length barrier on top of these patches.
> > >>>> Oh well, the changes are trivial anyway.
> > >>> This one ended up being the same, but in the first one you missed some
> > >>> of the cleanups. I ended up splitting the patch some more though, see
> > >>> the series:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=shortlog;h=barrier
> > >> Alright, will base on 662d5c5e6afb79d05db5563205b809c0de530286.  Thanks.
> > > 
> > > 1781c6a39fb6e31836557618c4505f5f7bc61605, no? Unless you want to rewrite
> > > it completely :-)
> > 
> > I think I'll start from 662d5c5e and steal most parts from 1781c6a3.  I
> > like stealing, you know. :-) I think 1781c6a3 also can use splitting -
> > zero length barrier implementation and issue_flush conversion.
> 
> Yes that's true, I could split that in two as well. Will do so!

Done, result in the same location.

-- 
Jens Axboe