Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] block: Add bio_reset()

[Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@google.com>]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 07:23:05PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:17:15PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > I still think they should be symmetrical, but if that's true bi_ioc and
> > bi_css need to be moved, and also bio_disassociate_task() should be
> > getting called from bio_free(), not bio_put().
> > 
> > Were you the one that added that call? I know you've been working on
> > that area of the code recently. Sticking it in bio_put() instead of
> > bio_free() seems odd to be, and they're completely equivalent now that
> > bio_free() is only called from bio_put() (save one instance I should
> > probably fix).
> 
> Maybe I botched symmetry but anyways I *suspect* it probably would be
> better to keep css association across bio_reset() give the current
> usages of both mechanisms.  css association indicates the ownership of
> the bio which isn't likely to change while recycling the bio.

Thought about it more and while you're right that css association isn't
likely to change, it'd just be a needless difference. bio_reset() should
be as close to a bio_free()/bio_alloc() as possible, IMO.

Fixed my patches to do it right, though.