linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 19/26] bounce: Refactor __blk_queue_bounce to not use bi_io

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120921002706.GW7264@google.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:27:06 -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 19/26] bounce: Refactor __blk_queue_bounce to not
 use bi_io_vec

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:22:30PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> A bunch of what __blk_queue_bounce() was doing was problematic for the
> immutable bvec work; this cleans that up and the code is quite a bit
> smaller, too.
> 
> The __bio_for_each_segment() in copy_to_high_bio_irq() was changed
> because that one's looping over the original bio, not the bounce bio -
> since the bounce code doesn't own that bio the __ version wasn't
> correct.

Also, I can't understand the above at all.  I can think why it
wouldn't be necessary but why is it wrong because bounce code doesn't
own it?

-- 
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/