[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250512061239.GA2893@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 08:12:39 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, xni@...hat.com, colyli@...nel.org,
agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org, mpatocka@...hat.com,
song@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com, johnny.chenyi@...wei.com,
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC md-6.16 v3 02/19] md: support discard for bitmap ops
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 02:05:56PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> - mddev->bitmap_ops->startwrite(mddev, md_io_clone->offset,
>>> - md_io_clone->sectors);
>>> + if (unlikely(md_io_clone->rw == STAT_DISCARD) &&
>>> + mddev->bitmap_ops->start_discard)
>>> + mddev->bitmap_ops->start_discard(mddev, md_io_clone->offset,
>>> + md_io_clone->sectors);
>>> + else
>>> + mddev->bitmap_ops->startwrite(mddev, md_io_clone->offset,
>>> + md_io_clone->sectors);
>>> }
>>
>> This interface feels weird, as it would still call into the write
>> interfaces when the discard ones are not defined instead of doing
>> nothing. Also shouldn't discard also use a different interface
>> than md_bitmap_start in the caller?
>
> This is because the old bitmap handle discard the same as write, I
> can't do nothing in this case. Do you prefer also reuse the write
> api to new discard api for old bitmap?
It can just point the discard method to the same function as the
existing write one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists