[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708130208.57542.phillips@phunq.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:08:57 -0700
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Distributed storage.
On Monday 13 August 2007 00:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > You did not comment on the one about putting the bio destructor
> > > in the ->endio handler, which looks dead simple. The majority of
> > > cases just use the default endio handler and the default
> > > destructor. Of the remaining cases, where a specialized
> > > destructor is needed, typically a specialized endio handler is
> > > too, so combining is free. There are few if any cases where a
> > > new specialized endio handler would need to be written.
> >
> > We could do that without too much work, I agree.
>
> But that idea fails as well, since reference counts and IO completion
> are two completely seperate entities. So unless end IO just happens
> to be the last user holding a reference to the bio, you cannot free
> it.
That is not a problem. When bio_put hits zero it calls ->endio instead
of the destructor. The ->endio sees that the count is zero and
destroys the bio.
Regards,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists