linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate

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]

Message-ID: <20120220191604.GC13423@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:16:04 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
	ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate_current()

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:01:28AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:36:22AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > In copy_io(), we don't share the io_context if "current" does not have
> > task->io_context set. Does that mean if even if I specify CLONE_IO, two
> > threads might not share io context depending on when clone() happened? Or
> > I am reading the code wrong.
> 
> Yeah, AFAICS, if the cloning task hasn't issued IO before, CLONE_IO is
> ignored.

Will it make sense to try to allocate and attach io_context and then 
share it in copy_io()?

Well, you are planning to kill CLONE_IO altogether, so it does not
make a difference.

Vivek
--
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/