Re: 2.6.23-mm1

Jens Axboe
2007-10-15T07:45:24Z

On Mon, Oct 15 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday October 15, jens.axboe@oracle.com wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15 2007, Milan Broz wrote:
> > >
> > > clone->bi_size is zero here now, so crypt_free_buffer_pages will not
> > > work correctly (previously there was count of processed bytes).
> > >
> > > But because it seems that bio cannot be processed partially now, we can
> > > simplify crypt_free_buffer_pages to always remove all allocated pages.
> >
> > Neil, this doesn't look very good. dm-crypt needs to know the clone io
> > size, so ->bi_size was definitely used properly in this context before.
> > Now it's gone. Suggestions on how to fix that up?
>
> How about the following - even more code simplification gained by this
> approach :-)

Looks good to me.

> I originally had the patch for removing the 'size' argument after a
> patch (series) that made bi_size unchanged. It seemed that patch
> would face a harder path upstream so I re-ordered them and missed this
> dependency. Mea Culpa.
>
> >
> > I've been less than impressed with the bi_end_io() patchset so far, it's
> > been full of typos and bad conversions. I'm tempted to revert the whole
> > thing, clearly it wasn't ready for merge.
>
> I must have missed something ....
>
> I've seen: A fix for a bi_end_io in jfs that I missed.
> A correction for that fix ("return 0" was remove instead
> of just the '0' removed)
> Some fixed for code that is only in -mm (which I didn't do
> because I thought you wanted it against a non-mm tree).

XFS update, s390 block driver, gfs2 update, ocfs2 update, powerpc
axonram block driver.

> I think it was definitely ready for merging in -mm. Possibly not for
> mainline just yet.

What's done is done, I just hope we've seen the last of it now.

--
Jens Axboe