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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:04:26 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" 
        <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial()

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.

For md write-behind, looks we have to provide the two arguments,
could you explain a bit how we can do that by adding another indirection?

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

Thanks!

-- 
Ming Lei