[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 07/26] block: Use bio_sectors() more consistently



On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:04:50PM -0400, Jim Paris wrote:
> Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Bunch of places in the code weren't using it where they could be -
> > this'll reduce the size of the patch that puts bi_sector/bi_size/bi_idx
> > into a struct bvec_iter.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
> > CC: Jens Axboe <axboe kernel dk>
> > CC: "Ed L. Cashin" <ecashin coraid com>
> > CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin kernel dk>
> > CC: Jiri Kosina <jkosina suse cz>
> > CC: Jim Paris <jim jtan com>
> > CC: Geoff Levand <geoff infradead org>
> > CC: Alasdair Kergon <agk redhat com>
> > CC: dm-devel redhat com
> > CC: Neil Brown <neilb suse de>
> > CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt goodmis org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/block/aoe/aoecmd.c   |  2 +-
> >  drivers/block/brd.c          |  3 +--
> >  drivers/block/pktcdvd.c      |  2 +-
> >  drivers/block/ps3vram.c      |  2 +-
> >  drivers/md/dm-raid1.c        |  2 +-
> >  drivers/md/raid0.c           |  6 +++---
> >  drivers/md/raid1.c           | 17 ++++++++---------
> >  drivers/md/raid10.c          | 24 +++++++++++-------------
> >  drivers/md/raid5.c           |  8 ++++----
> >  include/trace/events/block.h | 10 +++++-----
> >  10 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> ...
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/ps3vram.c b/drivers/block/ps3vram.c
> > index f58cdcf..1ff38e8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/ps3vram.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/ps3vram.c
> > @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ static struct bio *ps3vram_do_bio(struct ps3_system_bus_device *dev,
> >  	struct ps3vram_priv *priv = ps3_system_bus_get_drvdata(dev);
> >  	int write = bio_data_dir(bio) == WRITE;
> >  	const char *op = write ? "write" : "read";
> > -	loff_t offset = bio->bi_sector << 9;
> > +	loff_t offset = bio_sectors(bio);
> 
> This doesn't look right to me: bio_sectors(bio) is (bio->bi_size>>9),
> not (bio->bi_sector<<9~)?

Whoops, you're right - that's completely wrong. Thanks.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]