linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset

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: <20170213134654.GB22818@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:46:54 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc:     Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial()

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:56:13PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> md still need bio clone(not the fast version) for behind write,
> and it is more efficient to use bio_clone_bioset_partial().
> 
> The idea is simple and just copy the bvecs range specified from
> parameters.

Given how few users bio_clone_bioset has I wonder if we shouldn't
simply add the two new arguments to it instead of adding another
indirection.

Otherwise looks fine:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>