From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:38:28 -0600 Message-ID: <527BEC34.4000008@oracle.com> References: <20131101142026.10390b6e3f70de348770c137@canb.auug.org.au> <5273C473.5070803@kernel.dk> <20131102072252.88d2380fa392705b912dbfad@canb.auug.org.au> <52740EB1.2070901@kernel.dk> <527411DD.7050008@oracle.com> <527414DE.9090704@kernel.dk> <52756583.2030808@oracle.com> <527BE7FA.90904@oracle.com> <20131107192545.GA20624@moria.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:47376 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751336Ab3KGTik (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:38:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131107192545.GA20624@moria.home.lan> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Kent Overstreet Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Jens Axboe , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zach Brown , Olof Johansson On 11/07/2013 01:25 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:20:26PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >> On 11/02/2013 03:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >>> On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> >>>> So we've three immediate options: >>>> >>>> 1) You base it on top of the block tree >>>> 2) I carry the loop updates >>>> 3) You hand Stephen a merge patch for the resulting merge of the two >>> >>> Attached is a merge patch and the merged loop.c. I'm having problems >>> with the loop driver with both the block and my tree. I'll continue to >>> look at that, but everything should build cleanly with this. >> >> Looking back, I obviously rushed the last patch out. This merge patch, >> and the resulting loop.c, fix my problem. My code is working with Jens' >> block tree now. >> >> Jens, >> I ended up replacing a call to bio_iovec_idx() with __bvec_iter_bvec() >> since the former was removed. It's not very elegant, but it works. I'm >> open to suggestions on a cleaner fix, but it can wait until one or both >> of these trees is merged. > > No, that's definitely wrong. Read Documentation/block/biovecs.txt - you > need to use either the new bio_iovec() or bio_iovec() iter. I can do the > conversion later today. I appreciate your help. The patchset requires that the iov_iter structure can contain either a user-space iovec or a bio_vec, so that the iov_iter can be passed down transparently into the filesystems. I'll be happy any way we can get that to work. Thanks, Shaggy