[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230412071230epcms2p145d53bfc8e40eede25f282b80247218c@epcms2p1>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:12:30 +0900
From: Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@...sung.com>
To: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
CC: "kbusch@...nel.org" <kbusch@...nel.org>,
"axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
"sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"chaitanya.kulkarni@....com" <chaitanya.kulkarni@....com>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: RE:(2) [PATCH 2/2] nvme-pci: fix metadata mapping length
>> Even if the memory allocated for integrity is physically continuous,
>> struct bio_vec is composed separately for each page size.
>> In order not to use the blk_rq_map_integrity_sg(), the length of the
>> DMA mapping should be the total size of integrity payload.
>
> Hmm, looking outside the bio_vec is pretty nasty.
>
> I think the problem here is that bio_integrity_add_page should
> just add to the existing bvec, similar to bio_add_page and friends.
I agree with you.
I think the problem is bio_integrity_add_page().
If it is modified, sg functions for blk-integrity should also
be modified.
If you think the blk-integrity modification is better,
I will send an mail to block mailing after modifying it.
Best Regards.
Jinyoung.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists