[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120905201346.GG25236@google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:13:46 -0700
From: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] block: Add bio_reset()
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 07:23:05PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:17:15PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > I still think they should be symmetrical, but if that's true bi_ioc and
> > bi_css need to be moved, and also bio_disassociate_task() should be
> > getting called from bio_free(), not bio_put().
> >
> > Were you the one that added that call? I know you've been working on
> > that area of the code recently. Sticking it in bio_put() instead of
> > bio_free() seems odd to be, and they're completely equivalent now that
> > bio_free() is only called from bio_put() (save one instance I should
> > probably fix).
>
> Maybe I botched symmetry but anyways I *suspect* it probably would be
> better to keep css association across bio_reset() give the current
> usages of both mechanisms. css association indicates the ownership of
> the bio which isn't likely to change while recycling the bio.
Thought about it more and while you're right that css association isn't
likely to change, it'd just be a needless difference. bio_reset() should
be as close to a bio_free()/bio_alloc() as possible, IMO.
Fixed my patches to do it right, though.
--
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