[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8AUjB5hxkwxhnGK@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 06:09:16 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] iov_iter, block: Make bio structs pin pages
rather than ref'ing if appropriate
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:28:41AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > if (cleanup_mode & FOLL_GET) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(bio_test_flag(bio, BIO_PAGE_PINNED));
> > bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_PAGE_REFFED);
> > }
> > if (cleanup_mode & FOLL_PIN) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(bio_test_flag(bio, BIO_PAGE_REFFED));
> > bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_PAGE_PINNED);
> > }
>
> That won't necessarily work as you might get back cleanup_mode == 0, in which
> case both flags are cleared - and neither warning will trip on the next
> addition.
Well, it will work for the intended use case even with
cleanup_mode == 0, we just won't get the debug check. Or am I missing
something fundamental?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists