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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:26:35 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Shaohua Li <>, Jens Axboe <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        "open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" 
        linux-block <>,
        NeilBrown <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial()

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig <> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:04:26AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Christoph Hellwig <> 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?
> I meant to just pass the additional arguments that
> bio_clone_bioset_partial has to bio_clone_bioset.

That may cause more changes(fs, ...) into this patchset, so I suggest to
do that in another patchset, especially after we confirmed current
users of bio_clone is absolutely necessary, and I will check if other bio_clone
can be converted to fast clone.

Ming Lei

Powered by blists - more mailing lists