From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932148AbXHPHV3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:21:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758367AbXHPHVT (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:21:19 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:24642 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758895AbXHPHVS (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:21:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:21:15 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Neil Brown Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 002 of 5] Replace bio_data with blk_rq_data Message-ID: <20070816072114.GK23758@kernel.dk> References: <20070816150445.30843.patches@notabene> <1070816051337.31344@suse.de> <20070816070255.GJ23758@kernel.dk> <18115.63917.990694.904646@notabene.brown> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18115.63917.990694.904646@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 16 2007, Neil Brown wrote: > On Thursday August 16, jens.axboe@oracle.com wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 16 2007, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > > Almost every call to bio_data is for the first bio > > > in a request. A future patch will add some accounting > > > information to 'struct request' which will need to be > > > used to find the start of the request in the bio. > > > So replace bio_data with blk_rq_data which takes a 'struct request *' > > > > > > The one exception is in dm-emc were using > > > page_address(bio->bi_io_vec[0].bv_page); > > > is appropriate. > > > > This (and 3+4) just look like preparatory patches if we want to merge > > the full patchset, not bug fixes. I seem to recall you had more bug > > fixes or cleanups in your patchset, maybe I was mistaken. So nak for now > > for 2-4, I'd apply 5 but it depends on the previous. > > > > I don't remember other bug fixes, but I'll look through and check. OK, I'm properly remembering incorrectly then. > 2 and 3 are very simple changes that - I think - make it clearer what > is happening. To be honest, I don't see much win in using blk_rq_data() over bio_data() at all. I'd much much rather just see it go away! > And I felt 5 was a sufficient improvement to justify it and 4... 5 is nice, I would like to apply that :-) > I'll go hunting and see what other preliminaries I can find. Thanks! -- Jens Axboe