[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FBE78A2.8000803@panasas.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 21:06:26 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>,
<dm-devel@...hat.com>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<tj@...nel.org>, <axboe@...nel.dk>, <agk@...hat.com>,
<neilb@...e.de>, <drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com>,
<mpatocka@...hat.com>, <sage@...dream.net>,
<yehuda@...newdream.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] block: Generalized bio pool freeing
On 05/24/2012 08:46 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 05:02:38PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>> With the old code, when you allocate a bio from a bio pool you have to
>> implement your own destructor that knows how to find the bio pool the
>> bio was originally allocated from.
>>
>> This adds a new field to struct bio (bi_pool) and changes
>> bio_alloc_bioset() to use it. This makes various bio destructors
>> unnecessary, so they're then deleted.
>>
>
> [..]
>> @@ -419,7 +406,11 @@ void bio_put(struct bio *bio)
>> */
>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&bio->bi_cnt)) {
>> bio->bi_next = NULL;
>> - bio->bi_destructor(bio);
>> +
>> + if (bio->bi_pool)
>> + bio_free(bio, bio->bi_pool);
>> + else
>> + bio->bi_destructor(bio);
>
> If you have removed all the users of bi_destructor, then I am wondering that
> why are we retaining this field and trying to call into it when bio_pool
> is not set?
>
At this point there are still some users they are all removed and this field
later in the patchset
Boaz
> Thanks
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists