[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527C2AA9.9040608@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:04:57 -0600
From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>, 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 11/07/2013 01:25 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:20:26PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>> 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.
Stephen,
Can you please drop the aio-direct tree for the time being?
My stuff is not aligning very well with the immutable biovecs and Kent
has a different approach in mind. I'll be working with him on a
replacement that will hopefully be simpler.
Thanks,
Shaggy
--
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