From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265578AbUABN5l (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:57:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265579AbUABN5l (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:57:41 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:8835 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265578AbUABN4w (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:56:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:56:45 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Christophe Saout Cc: Linux-Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Move bv_offset/bv_len update after bio_endio in __end_that_request_first Message-ID: <20040102135645.GA20572@suse.de> References: <20040101173214.GA4496@leto.cs.pocnet.net> <20040102104637.GN5523@suse.de> <1073048438.4239.10.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1073048438.4239.10.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 02 2004, Christophe Saout wrote: > Am Fr, den 02.01.2004 schrieb Jens Axboe um 11:46: > > > > That's why I need to know exactly how many and which bvecs were completed > > > in my bi_end_io function. > > > > > > Or do you think it is safer to count backwards using bi_vcnt and bi_size? > > > > I'm inclined to thinking that, indeed. Those two fields have a more well > > established usage, so I think you'll be better off doing that in the > > long run. > > Ok, if you say so. This and the IDE multwrite thing are the only two > places in the kernel preventing bi_idx to be usable this way. I just > thought it was nicer. It is nicer, I agree. I'm not adverse to including the ll_rw_blk change, you'll have to deal with IDE yourself :) -- Jens Axboe