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

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 21/26] block: Convert some code to bio_for_each_segment_all()



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 05:38:32PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:22:32PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > A few places in the code were either open coding or using the wrong
> > version - fix.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
> > CC: Jens Axboe <axboe kernel dk>
> > CC: NeilBrown <neilb suse de>
> > ---
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > @@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ static void alloc_behind_pages(struct bio *bio, struct r1bio *r1_bio)
> >  	if (unlikely(!bvecs))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, i) {
> > +	bio_for_each_segment_all(bvec, bio, i) {
> 
> I don't get this conversion.  Why is this necessary?

Not necessary, just a consistency thing - this bio is a clone that md
owns (and the clone was trimmed, so we know bi_idx is 0).

Also, it wasn't an issue here but after the patch that introduces the
bvec iter it's no longer possible to modify the biovec through
bio_for_each_segment_all() - it doesn't increment a pointer to the
current bvec, you pass in a struct bio_vec (not a pointer) which is
updated with what the current biovec would be (taking into account
bi_bvec_done and bi_size).

So because of that it is IMO more worthwhile to be consistent about
bio_for_each_segment()/bio_for_each_segment_all() usage.

Suppose I should stick all that in the patch description.


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