[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120920215827.GF7264@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:58:27 -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, axboe@...nel.dk, neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/26] block: Add bio_advance()
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:22:13PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> +/**
> + * bio_advance - increment/complete a bio by some number of bytes
> + * @bio: bio to advance
> + * @bytes: number of bytes to complete
> + *
> + * This updates bi_sector, bi_size and bi_idx; if the number of bytes to
> + * complete doesn't align with a bvec boundary, then bv_len and bv_offset will
> + * be updated on the last bvec as well.
> + *
> + * @bio will then represent the remaining, uncompleted portion of the io.
> + */
> +void bio_advance(struct bio *bio, unsigned bytes)
> +{
> + if (bio_integrity(bio))
> + bio_integrity_advance(bio, bytes);
> +
> + bio->bi_sector += bytes >> 0;
Hmmm.... bytes >> 0?
> + bio->bi_size -= bytes;
> +
> + if (!bio->bi_size)
> + return;
> +
> + while (bytes) {
> + if (unlikely(bio->bi_idx >= bio->bi_vcnt)) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: bio idx %d >= vcnt %d\n",
pr_err() is preferred but maybe WARN_ON_ONCE() is better fit here?
This happening would be a bug, right?
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