[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120824203620.GG21325@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:36:20 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, mpatocka@...hat.com,
bharrosh@...asas.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/13] block: Add bio_clone_bioset(),
bio_clone_kmalloc()
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24:18PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > I'd prefer simply adding @bioset to bio_clone() so that the caller
> > always has to make the choice consciously. We're updating all the
> > callers anyway.
>
> Possibly, but the btrfs code uses bio_clone() and there fs_bio_set may
> be correct (will have to look at what it's doing, if it's cloning a bio
> that was allocated out of fs_bio_set that would be bad..)
Yeah, I think it's generally a good idea to require explicit bioset
specification even if that ends up being fs_bio_set or NULL.
> I would also prefer to simply drop bio_clone() so that
> bio_clone_bioset() matches bio_alloc_bioset(), but regardless that'll
> have to be a different patch (and I don't think I've had to update any
> of the bio_clone() callers in this patch series anyways).
Ooh yeah, bio_clone_bioset() would be the better name for it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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