[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v7 7/9] block: Add bio_clone_bioset(), bio_clone_kmalloc()
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
- Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe kernel dk>, Jeff Garzik <jeff garzik org>, dm-devel redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-bcache vger kernel org, mpatocka redhat com, Alasdair Kergon <agk redhat com>, bharrosh panasas com, vgoyal redhat com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v7 7/9] block: Add bio_clone_bioset(), bio_clone_kmalloc()
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:19:16 -0700
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:05:32PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:44:01PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:37:34AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > +static inline struct bio *bio_clone(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > +{
> > > + return bio_clone_bioset(bio, gfp_mask, fs_bio_set);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > ...
> > > +static inline struct bio *bio_clone_kmalloc(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > +{
> > > + return bio_clone_bioset(bio, gfp_mask, NULL);
> > > +
> > > +}
> >
> > Do we really need these wrappers? I'd prefer requiring users to
> > explicit choose @bioset when cloning.
>
> bio_clone() is an existing api, I agree but I'd prefer to convert
> existing users in a separate patch and when I do that I want to spend
> some time actually looking at the existing code instead of doing the
> conversion blindly (at least some of the existing users are incorrect
> and I'll have to add bio_sets for them).
Aren't there like three users in kernel? If you wanna clean it up
later, that's fine too but I don't think it would make much difference
either way.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]