[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 09/14] block: Add an explicit bio flag for bios that own their bvec
- From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>
- To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
- Cc: axboe kernel dk, yehuda hq newdream net, dm-devel redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, tj kernel org, linux-bcache vger kernel org, mpatocka redhat com, Boaz Harrosh <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 09/14] block: Add an explicit bio flag for bios that own their bvec
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:49:14 -0400
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:31:58PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 07:57:34PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > How do you insure that the original bio which owns the
> > bvec is not freed before the split-out bio.
> >
> > Perhaps calling code needs to make sure by taking an extra
> > ref on the original bio, or something. If so a big fat comment
> > at bio_split is do.
>
> Yeah, just added that.
>
> >
> > And I understand you did not like my suggestion of negating
> > the meaning of the flag, so the default is zero?
> > Please say why?
>
> I liked it at first, but I think I prefer having the flag be set
> if bio_free() must take some action; i.e. you set the flag when you
> allocate bi_io_vec. Also, I think bio_alloc_bioset() getting
> reimplemented is less likely than people open coding bio splitting or
> something that shares bi_io_vec in the future, so it's slightlry less
> likely to be used wrong this way.
Even if you keep it as it is, I thought BIO_OWNS_BVEC probably communicates
the idea better than BIO_HAS_BVEC.
Thanks
Vivek
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]