[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150518132040.GB13998@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:20:40 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: dm-devel@...hat.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.2 01/14] block: remove management of bi_remaining
when restoring original bi_end_io
On Mon, May 18 2015 at 4:24am -0400,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> In general this looks good. But as Jan mentioned you need to
> clear BIO_CHAIN when bi_remaining reaches zero
OK I just replied to Jan -- I'm not yet understanding why. That said, I
also don't have a problem with doing what you guys are asking. I'd just
like to understand the problem you're forseeing because in practice I'm
not hitting it in testing.
> and I'd really prefer if bio_inc_remaining wuld not be left exported
> and folded into bio_chain so that we prevent new abuses from showing
> up and keep the code centralized.
Your desire to make bio_inc_remaining() private is noted but I think the
proposed blkdev_issue_discard_async() is useful. In the context of DM
thinp's use of blkdev_issue_discard_async(): yes it is (ab)using
bio_chain() and bio_inc_remaining() to setup the async IO completion
scheme but it makes for a pretty clean solution to the problem of
wanting to have an async interface for discard.
--
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