From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ming Lei Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial() Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:26:35 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1486724177-14817-1-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com> <1486724177-14817-2-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com> <20170213134654.GB22818@infradead.org> <20170214160151.GB32705@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170214160151.GB32705@infradead.org> Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Shaohua Li , Jens Axboe , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" , linux-block , NeilBrown List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:04:26AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:56:13PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> >> md still need bio clone(not the fast version) for behind write, >> >> and it is more efficient to use bio_clone_bioset_partial(). >> >> >> >> The idea is simple and just copy the bvecs range specified from >> >> parameters. >> > >> > Given how few users bio_clone_bioset has I wonder if we shouldn't >> > simply add the two new arguments to it instead of adding another >> > indirection. >> >> For md write-behind, looks we have to provide the two arguments, >> could you explain a bit how we can do that by adding another indirection? > > I meant to just pass the additional arguments that > bio_clone_bioset_partial has to bio_clone_bioset. That may cause more changes(fs, ...) into this patchset, so I suggest to do that in another patchset, especially after we confirmed current users of bio_clone is absolutely necessary, and I will check if other bio_clone can be converted to fast clone. Thanks, Ming Lei