[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 01/14] block: Generalized bio pool freeing
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
- Cc: axboe kernel dk, yehuda hq newdream net, dm-devel redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-bcache vger kernel org, mpatocka redhat com, vgoyal redhat com, bharrosh panasas com, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, sage newdream net, agk redhat com, drbd-dev lists linbit com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 01/14] block: Generalized bio pool freeing
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:19:14 -0700
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:09:44AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 05:02:38PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > With the old code, when you allocate a bio from a bio pool you have to
> > implement your own destructor that knows how to find the bio pool the
> > bio was originally allocated from.
> >
> > This adds a new field to struct bio (bi_pool) and changes
> > bio_alloc_bioset() to use it. This makes various bio destructors
> > unnecessary, so they're then deleted.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
> > Change-Id: I5eb66c1d6910757f4af8755b8857dcbe4619cf8d
>
> Please drop Change-ID tag and it would be great how you tested the
> changes, other than that,
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
To add a bit here too. Please explain "why" you're making this
change. Is it because bi_destructor interface is cumbersome? Adding
bi_pool is overhead - why is it justified? Is it because one pointer
is fine to add to struct bio (which I kinda agree) or are there future
changes which will reverse the overhead (which is the case here).
In general, I find the descriptions insufficient. They don't describe
the reasons and reasoning behind the patch.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]