[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180613144741.GC4693@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:47:41 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 12/30] block: introduce bio_chunks()
> +static inline unsigned bio_chunks(struct bio *bio)
> +{
> + unsigned chunks = 0;
> + struct bio_vec bv;
> + struct bvec_iter iter;
>
> - return segs;
> + /*
> + * We special case discard/write same/write zeroes, because they
> + * interpret bi_size differently:
> + */
> + switch (bio_op(bio)) {
> + case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
> + case REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE:
> + case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
> + return 0;
> + case REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME:
> + return 1;
> + default:
> + bio_for_each_chunk(bv, bio, iter)
> + chunks++;
> + return chunks;
Shouldn't this just return bio->bi_vcnt?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists