From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: majianpeng Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Set bi_rw when alloc bio before call bio_add_page. Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:42:57 +0800 Message-ID: <201207310842549068542@gmail.com> References: <201207301514247032532@gmail.com>, <20120730153935.GE4547@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: axboe , shaggy , "chris.mason" , elder , tytso , ocfs2-devel , mfasheh , linux-kernel , xfs , bpm , "adilger.kernel" , viro , jfs-discussion , linux-fsdevel , linux-ext4 , linux-btrfs , jlbec To: konrad.wilk Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: jfs-discussion-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On 2012-07-30 23:39 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Wrote: >On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:14:28PM +0800, majianpeng wrote: >> When exec bio_alloc, the bi_rw is zero.But after calling bio_add_page, > >What about submit_bio? That sets the bi_rw as well? >> it will use bi_rw. >> Fox example, in functiion __bio_add_page,it will call merge_bvec_fn(). > >function. >> The merge_bvec_fn of raid456 will use the bi_rw to judge the merge. >> >> if ((bvm->bi_rw & 1) == WRITE) >> >> return biovec->bv_len; /* always allow writes to be mergeable */ > >So what does that mean? Without this patch what happens? > Because bio_alloc, the bi_rw is zero default.But in __bio_add_page, it used bi_rw. For example: if merge_bvce_fn used bi_rw, but the bi_rw is wrong(if bi_rw is not zero). So the result may be error. >> >> >> Jianpeng Ma (8): > >Can you collapse all of this in just one patch? Sorry, I think those files are not a subsystem.So i should send separately. > >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling > >It is 'evaluate' >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> >> block/blk-lib.c | 1 + >> drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c | 1 + > >I am not really sure if that is correct. Does 'submit_bio' not do the >job properly? Before call submit_bio, it call bio_add_page. > >> fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 1 + >> fs/direct-io.c | 1 + >> fs/ext4/page-io.c | 1 + >> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c | 1 + >> fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c | 8 +++++--- >> fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 2 ++ >> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 1 + >> 9 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q6V0fnCT113391 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:41:49 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 5Sa9pvx3E7xrJEq7 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrr13 with SMTP id rr13so13200136pbb.26 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:42:57 +0800 From: majianpeng Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Set bi_rw when alloc bio before call bio_add_page. References: <201207301514247032532@gmail.com>, <20120730153935.GE4547@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201207310842549068542@gmail.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "konrad.wilk" Cc: axboe , shaggy , "chris.mason" , elder , tytso , ocfs2-devel , mfasheh , linux-kernel , xfs , bpm , "adilger.kernel" , viro , jfs-discussion , linux-fsdevel , linux-ext4 , linux-btrfs , jlbec On 2012-07-30 23:39 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Wrote: >On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:14:28PM +0800, majianpeng wrote: >> When exec bio_alloc, the bi_rw is zero.But after calling bio_add_page, > >What about submit_bio? That sets the bi_rw as well? >> it will use bi_rw. >> Fox example, in functiion __bio_add_page,it will call merge_bvec_fn(). > >function. >> The merge_bvec_fn of raid456 will use the bi_rw to judge the merge. >> >> if ((bvm->bi_rw & 1) == WRITE) >> >> return biovec->bv_len; /* always allow writes to be mergeable */ > >So what does that mean? Without this patch what happens? > Because bio_alloc, the bi_rw is zero default.But in __bio_add_page, it used bi_rw. For example: if merge_bvce_fn used bi_rw, but the bi_rw is wrong(if bi_rw is not zero). So the result may be error. >> >> >> Jianpeng Ma (8): > >Can you collapse all of this in just one patch? Sorry, I think those files are not a subsystem.So i should send separately. > >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling > >It is 'evaluate' >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> >> block/blk-lib.c | 1 + >> drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c | 1 + > >I am not really sure if that is correct. Does 'submit_bio' not do the >job properly? Before call submit_bio, it call bio_add_page. > >> fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 1 + >> fs/direct-io.c | 1 + >> fs/ext4/page-io.c | 1 + >> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c | 1 + >> fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c | 8 +++++--- >> fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 2 ++ >> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 1 + >> 9 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: majianpeng Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:41:54 -0000 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/8] Set bi_rw when alloc bio before call bio_add_page. References: <201207301514247032532@gmail.com>, <20120730153935.GE4547@phenom.dumpdata.com> Message-ID: <201207310842549068542@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "konrad.wilk" Cc: axboe , shaggy , "chris.mason" , elder , tytso , ocfs2-devel , mfasheh , linux-kernel , xfs , bpm , "adilger.kernel" , viro , jfs-discussion , linux-fsdevel , linux-ext4 , linux-btrfs , jlbec On 2012-07-30 23:39 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Wrote: >On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:14:28PM +0800, majianpeng wrote: >> When exec bio_alloc, the bi_rw is zero.But after calling bio_add_page, > >What about submit_bio? That sets the bi_rw as well? >> it will use bi_rw. >> Fox example, in functiion __bio_add_page,it will call merge_bvec_fn(). > >function. >> The merge_bvec_fn of raid456 will use the bi_rw to judge the merge. >> >> if ((bvm->bi_rw & 1) == WRITE) >> >> return biovec->bv_len; /* always allow writes to be mergeable */ > >So what does that mean? Without this patch what happens? > Because bio_alloc, the bi_rw is zero default.But in __bio_add_page, it used bi_rw. For example: if merge_bvce_fn used bi_rw, but the bi_rw is wrong(if bi_rw is not zero). So the result may be error. >> >> >> Jianpeng Ma (8): > >Can you collapse all of this in just one patch? Sorry, I think those files are not a subsystem.So i should send separately. > >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling > >It is 'evaluate' >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> Evalue bio->bi_rw after calling bio_alloc() and before calling >> bio_add_page(). >> >> block/blk-lib.c | 1 + >> drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c | 1 + > >I am not really sure if that is correct. Does 'submit_bio' not do the >job properly? Before call submit_bio, it call bio_add_page. > >> fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 1 + >> fs/direct-io.c | 1 + >> fs/ext4/page-io.c | 1 + >> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c | 1 + >> fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c | 8 +++++--- >> fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 2 ++ >> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 1 + >> 9 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 1.7.9.5