[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120901021916.GD19535@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:19:16 -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 v7 7/9] block: Add bio_clone_bioset(),
bio_clone_kmalloc()
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:05:32PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:44:01PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:37:34AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > +static inline struct bio *bio_clone(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > +{
> > > + return bio_clone_bioset(bio, gfp_mask, fs_bio_set);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > ...
> > > +static inline struct bio *bio_clone_kmalloc(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > +{
> > > + return bio_clone_bioset(bio, gfp_mask, NULL);
> > > +
> > > +}
> >
> > Do we really need these wrappers? I'd prefer requiring users to
> > explicit choose @bioset when cloning.
>
> bio_clone() is an existing api, I agree but I'd prefer to convert
> existing users in a separate patch and when I do that I want to spend
> some time actually looking at the existing code instead of doing the
> conversion blindly (at least some of the existing users are incorrect
> and I'll have to add bio_sets for them).
Aren't there like three users in kernel? If you wanna clean it up
later, that's fine too but I don't think it would make much difference
either way.
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