[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131107192545.GA20624@moria.home.lan>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:25:45 -0800
From: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
To: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:20:26PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 03:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> >> So we've three immediate options:
> >>
> >> 1) You base it on top of the block tree
> >> 2) I carry the loop updates
> >> 3) You hand Stephen a merge patch for the resulting merge of the two
> >
> > Attached is a merge patch and the merged loop.c. I'm having problems
> > with the loop driver with both the block and my tree. I'll continue to
> > look at that, but everything should build cleanly with this.
>
> Looking back, I obviously rushed the last patch out. This merge patch,
> and the resulting loop.c, fix my problem. My code is working with Jens'
> block tree now.
>
> Jens,
> I ended up replacing a call to bio_iovec_idx() with __bvec_iter_bvec()
> since the former was removed. It's not very elegant, but it works. I'm
> open to suggestions on a cleaner fix, but it can wait until one or both
> of these trees is merged.
No, that's definitely wrong. Read Documentation/block/biovecs.txt - you
need to use either the new bio_iovec() or bio_iovec() iter. I can do the
conversion later today.
--
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