From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/14] block: Add bio_clone_kmalloc() Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 17:31:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20120525003114.GF22664@google.com> References: <1337817771-25038-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <1337817771-25038-5-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <20120524185919.GE27550@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120524185919.GE27550-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Vivek Goyal Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org, agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, neilb-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org, drbd-dev-cunTk1MwBs8qoQakbn7OcQ@public.gmane.org, bharrosh-C4P08NqkoRlBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, mpatocka-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, sage-BnTBU8nroG7k1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org, yehuda-L5o5AL9CYN0tUFlbccrkMA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:59:19PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 05:02:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > [..] > > diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c > > index 013c7a5..5a953c6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c > > +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c > > @@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, struct bio **next, > > } > > > > while (old_chain && (total < len)) { > > - tmp = bio_kmalloc(gfpmask, old_chain->bi_max_vecs); > > + tmp = bio_clone_kmalloc(old_chain, gfpmask); > > if (!tmp) > > goto err_out; > > > > @@ -751,13 +751,9 @@ static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, struct bio **next, > > if (!bp) > > goto err_out; > > > > - __bio_clone(tmp, &bp->bio1); > > - > > *next = &bp->bio2; > > Is this code correct. Now original code might clone bio after split and > new code will clone the original bio itself and not the split one? Argh, you're right, I screwed that up. I'd like to get rid of all the open coded bio_clone()s out there (to reduce the amount of code that "Only clone bio vecs that are in use" has to change, but this code is too tricky - I'm just going to drop this bit.