[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5 01/12] block: Generalized bio pool freeing
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
- Cc: axboe kernel dk, dm-devel redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-bcache vger kernel org, mpatocka redhat com, vgoyal redhat com, yehuda hq newdream net, sage newdream net, agk redhat com, drbd-dev lists linbit com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5 01/12] block: Generalized bio pool freeing
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:25:15 -0700
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:08:30PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> @@ -422,7 +409,11 @@ void bio_put(struct bio *bio)
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&bio->bi_cnt)) {
> bio_disassociate_task(bio);
> bio->bi_next = NULL;
> - bio->bi_destructor(bio);
> +
> + if (bio->bi_pool)
> + bio_free(bio, bio->bi_pool);
> + else
> + bio->bi_destructor(bio);
So, this bi_pool overriding caller specified custom bi_destructor is
rather unusual. I know why it's like that - the patch series is
gradually replacing bi_destructor with bi_pool and removes
bi_destructor eventually, but it would be far better if at least patch
description says why this is unusual like this.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]