From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 06/26] block: Add bio_end_sector() Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:10:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20121002181001.GB3283@redhat.com> References: <1348526106-17074-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <1348526106-17074-7-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1348526106-17074-7-git-send-email-koverstreet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Kent Overstreet Cc: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org, linux-s390-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Chris Mason , Jiri Kosina , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Alasdair Kergon , tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Steven Whitehouse , Lars Ellenberg List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:34:46PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: [..] > diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h > index 4e32be1..d985e90 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bio.h > +++ b/include/linux/bio.h > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ > #define bio_offset(bio) bio_iovec((bio))->bv_offset > #define bio_segments(bio) ((bio)->bi_vcnt - (bio)->bi_idx) > #define bio_sectors(bio) ((bio)->bi_size >> 9) > +#define bio_end_sector(bio) ((bio)->bi_sector + bio_sectors(bio)) May be it is just me. But bio_end_sector() kind of sounds that it will calculate to the last sector of bio. So I thought of it more as bio_last_sector() and not the sector which is next to the last sector. Will it make sense to introduce bio_last_sector() and use +1 everywhere. Or may be we need a better name. Can't think of one though. Thanks Vivek From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zimbra.linbit.com (zimbra.linbit.com [212.69.161.123]) by mail09.linbit.com (LINBIT Mail Daemon) with ESMTP id E10131012A92 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:39:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.linbit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B714B1B4369 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:39:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zimbra.linbit.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.linbit.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sQ4+PARFP-sI for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:39:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from soda.linbit (tuerlsteher.linbit.com [86.59.100.100]) by zimbra.linbit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D241B4368 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:39:04 +0200 (CEST) Resent-Message-ID: <20121004123904.GL26479@soda.linbit> Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by mail09.linbit.com (LINBIT Mail Daemon) with ESMTP id D3E15103B4B5 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:10:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:10:01 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Kent Overstreet Message-ID: <20121002181001.GB3283@redhat.com> References: <1348526106-17074-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <1348526106-17074-7-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1348526106-17074-7-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason , dm-devel@redhat.com, Jiri Kosina , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Steven Whitehouse , Alasdair Kergon , Lars Ellenberg Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 06/26] block: Add bio_end_sector() List-Id: Coordination of development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:34:46PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: [..] > diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h > index 4e32be1..d985e90 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bio.h > +++ b/include/linux/bio.h > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ > #define bio_offset(bio) bio_iovec((bio))->bv_offset > #define bio_segments(bio) ((bio)->bi_vcnt - (bio)->bi_idx) > #define bio_sectors(bio) ((bio)->bi_size >> 9) > +#define bio_end_sector(bio) ((bio)->bi_sector + bio_sectors(bio)) May be it is just me. But bio_end_sector() kind of sounds that it will calculate to the last sector of bio. So I thought of it more as bio_last_sector() and not the sector which is next to the last sector. Will it make sense to introduce bio_last_sector() and use +1 everywhere. Or may be we need a better name. Can't think of one though. Thanks Vivek From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752668Ab2JBSKa (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:10:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5160 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751691Ab2JBSK2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:10:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:10:01 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Kent Overstreet Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason , Jiri Kosina , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Alasdair Kergon , tj@kernel.org, Steven Whitehouse , Lars Ellenberg Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 06/26] block: Add bio_end_sector() Message-ID: <20121002181001.GB3283@redhat.com> References: <1348526106-17074-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <1348526106-17074-7-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1348526106-17074-7-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:34:46PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: [..] > diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h > index 4e32be1..d985e90 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bio.h > +++ b/include/linux/bio.h > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ > #define bio_offset(bio) bio_iovec((bio))->bv_offset > #define bio_segments(bio) ((bio)->bi_vcnt - (bio)->bi_idx) > #define bio_sectors(bio) ((bio)->bi_size >> 9) > +#define bio_end_sector(bio) ((bio)->bi_sector + bio_sectors(bio)) May be it is just me. But bio_end_sector() kind of sounds that it will calculate to the last sector of bio. So I thought of it more as bio_last_sector() and not the sector which is next to the last sector. Will it make sense to introduce bio_last_sector() and use +1 everywhere. Or may be we need a better name. Can't think of one though. Thanks Vivek