From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: change rq_integrity_vec to respect the iterator
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 09:33:46 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9ef7cff7-1ef5-4a3f-a2d5-5d7e28bb8a44@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <798720bc-bc69-1e1c-8436-474e8a9fb0e8@redhat.com>
On 5/23/24 9:11 AM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>> @@ -853,16 +855,20 @@ static blk_status_t nvme_prep_rq(struct
>>> goto out_free_cmd;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY
>>> if (blk_integrity_rq(req)) {
>>> ret = nvme_map_metadata(dev, req, &iod->cmd);
>>> if (ret)
>>> goto out_unmap_data;
>>> }
>>> +#endif
>>
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY) && blk_integrity_rq(req)) {
>>
>> ?
>
> That wouldn't work, because the calls to rq_integrity_vec need to be
> eliminated by the preprocessor.
Why not just do this incremental? Cleans up the ifdef mess too, leaving
only the one actually using rq_integrity_vec in place.
diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
index 5f857cbc95c8..bd56416a7fa8 100644
--- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
@@ -821,10 +821,10 @@ static blk_status_t nvme_map_data(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req,
return ret;
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY
static blk_status_t nvme_map_metadata(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req,
struct nvme_command *cmnd)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY
struct nvme_iod *iod = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(req);
struct bio_vec bv = rq_integrity_vec(req);
@@ -832,9 +832,9 @@ static blk_status_t nvme_map_metadata(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req,
if (dma_mapping_error(dev->dev, iod->meta_dma))
return BLK_STS_IOERR;
cmnd->rw.metadata = cpu_to_le64(iod->meta_dma);
+#endif
return BLK_STS_OK;
}
-#endif
static blk_status_t nvme_prep_rq(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req)
{
@@ -855,20 +855,16 @@ static blk_status_t nvme_prep_rq(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req)
goto out_free_cmd;
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY
- if (blk_integrity_rq(req)) {
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY) && blk_integrity_rq(req)) {
ret = nvme_map_metadata(dev, req, &iod->cmd);
if (ret)
goto out_unmap_data;
}
-#endif
nvme_start_request(req);
return BLK_STS_OK;
-#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY
out_unmap_data:
nvme_unmap_data(dev, req);
-#endif
out_free_cmd:
nvme_cleanup_cmd(req);
return ret;
> Should I change rq_integrity_vec to this? Then, we could get rid of the
> ifdefs and let the optimizer remove all calls to rq_integrity_vec.
> static inline struct bio_vec rq_integrity_vec(struct request *rq)
> {
> struct bio_vec bv = { };
> return bv;
> }
Only if that eliminates runtime checking for !INTEGRITY, which I don't
thin it will.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-23 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-15 13:27 [RFC PATCH 0/2] dm-crypt support for per-sector NVMe metadata Mikulas Patocka
2024-05-15 13:28 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] block: change rq_integrity_vec to respect the iterator Mikulas Patocka
2024-05-16 2:30 ` Jens Axboe
2024-05-20 12:53 ` Mikulas Patocka
2024-05-23 14:58 ` [PATCH v2] " Mikulas Patocka
2024-05-23 15:01 ` Jens Axboe
2024-05-23 15:11 ` Mikulas Patocka
2024-05-23 15:22 ` Anuj gupta
2024-05-23 15:33 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2024-05-23 15:48 ` Mikulas Patocka
2024-05-16 8:14 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] " Ming Lei
2024-05-20 12:42 ` Mikulas Patocka
2024-05-20 13:19 ` Ming Lei
2024-05-15 13:30 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm-crypt: support per-sector NVMe metadata Mikulas Patocka
2024-05-27 22:12 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] dm-crypt support for " Eric Wheeler
2024-05-28 7:25 ` Milan Broz
2024-05-28 23:55 ` Eric Wheeler
2024-05-28 11:16 ` Mikulas Patocka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9ef7cff7-1ef5-4a3f-a2d5-5d7e28bb8a44@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=gmazyland@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox