linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET pata-2.6] ide: rq->buffer, data, special and misc cleanups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:07:57 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	jeff@...zik.org
Cc:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, bharrosh@...asas.com, tj@...nel.org,
	petkovbb@...il.com, bzolnier@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET pata-2.6] ide: rq->buffer, data, special and misc
	cleanups

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:31:08 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:

> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:54:38 -0400
> > Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:04:39 +0300
> >>> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> just don't think bvec should be used outside of block/fs interface.
> >>>>> As I wrote before, non-FS users have no reason to worry about bio.
> >>>>> All it should think about is the requst it needs to issue and the
> >>>>> memory area it's gonna use as in/out buffers.  bio just doesn't have a
> >>>>> place there.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I don't understand what happens to all the people that start to work on the block
> >>>> layer, they start getting defensive about bio being private to the request
> >>>> level. But the Genie is out of the bag already (I know cats and bottles).
> >>>> bio is already heavily used above the block layer from directly inside filesystems
> >>>> to all kind of raid engines, DM MD managers, multi paths, integrity information ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Because bio is exactly that Ideal page carrier you are talking about.
> >>> Wrong. multi path doesn't use bio. md accesses to the bio internal
> >>> (it's not nice) and has the own way to carry pages. dm has the own
> >>> mechanism on the top of bio. And bio doesn't work nicely for file
> >>> systems such as btrfs, which handle multiple devices.
> >>>
> >>> Please stop your wrong argument 'bio is the ideal page carrier'.
> >> What is the multi-device problem with bio?
> > 
> > Well, if it works nicely, I guess that we don't have something like
> > drivers/dm/{dm-bio-record.h, dm-bio-list.h}, btrfs_multi_bio struct,
> > or md's own page carrier?
> 
> It was an honest question.  I am seeking information, not denying your 
> argument.
> 
> What, specifically, is this multi-device problem with bio, please?

dm-bio-record.h says:

/*
 * There are lots of mutable fields in the bio struct that get
 * changed by the lower levels of the block layer.  Some targets,
 * such as multipath, may wish to resubmit a bio on error.  The
 * functions in this file help the target record and restore the
 * original bio state.
 */


I guess that dm-bio-list.h is a way to link multiple bios for multiple
devices to a single structure but others use bio->bi_next for a
different purpose (for example, building a large request in the block
mapping API) so it's confusing.
--
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/