From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263349AbTFJPsm (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:48:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263338AbTFJPsm (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:48:42 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:55776 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263295AbTFJPre (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:47:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:01:14 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop 2/9 absorb bio_copy Message-ID: <20030610160114.GG17164@suse.de> References: <20030610153730.GC17164@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 10 2003, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10 2003, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > bio_copy is used only by the loop driver, which already has to walk the > > > bio segments itself: so it makes sense to change it from bio.c export > > > to loop.c static, as prelude to working upon it there. > > > > I don't think this is is a particularly good idea, it's pretty core bio > > functionality that should be left alone in bio.c imho. > > > > Is there a real reason you want to do this apart from 'loop is the only > > (current) user'? > > As I said, loop already has to walk the bio segments itself elsewhere, > and a lot of what bio_copy does (e.g. copying data) it doesn't need done, > and other things it does (same gfp_mask for two very different allocations) > don't suit loop very well. By all means add bio_copy back into fs/bio.c > when something else needs that functionality? Alright, I guess I can live with that as there's no direct need for it elsewhere right now. Just doesn't feel right. -- Jens Axboe