[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180614063920.GA10284@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:39:20 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
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 15/30] block: introduce bio_clone_chunk_bioset()
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:01:38AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Bounce limits the max pages as 256 will do bio splitting, so won't need
> this change.
Behavior for the bounce code does not change with my patch.
The important points are:
- the default interface (bio_clone_bioset in this case) should always
operate on full biosets
- if the bounce code needs bioves limited to single pages it should
be treated as the special case
- given that the bounce code is inside the block layer using the
__-prefixed internal interface is perfectly fine
- last but not least I think the parameter switching the behavior
needs a much more descriptive name as suggested in my patch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists