Re: [PATCH v20 12/12] null_blk: add support for copy offload

Nitesh Shetty
2024-05-23T07:18:59Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1499 bytes --]

On 22/05/24 10:52AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>On 5/21/24 07:46, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>>On 20/05/24 04:42PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>>>>+    __rq_for_each_bio(bio, req) {
>>>>+        if (seg == blk_rq_nr_phys_segments(req)) {
>>>>+            sector_in = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
>>>>+            if (rem != bio->bi_iter.bi_size)
>>>>+                return status;
>>>>+        } else {
>>>>+            sector_out = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
>>>>+            rem = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
>>>>+        }
>>>>+        seg++;
>>>>+    }
>>>
>>>_rq_for_each_bio() iterates over the bios in a request. Does a copy
>>>offload request always have two bios - one copy destination bio and
>>>one copy source bio? If so, is 'seg' a bio counter? Why is that bio
>>>counter compared with the number of physical segments in the request?
>>>
>>Yes, your observation is right. We are treating first bio as dst and
>>second as src. If not for that comparision, we might need to store the
>>index in a temporary variable and parse based on index value.
>
>I'm still wondering why 'seg' is compared with blk_rq_nr_phys_segments(req).
>
In this case blk_rq_nr_phys_segments is used as counter value(==2), which tells
its a src IO. But using a macro instead of this comparison will avoid this
confusion. We will change this in next version to make it explicit.

Thank you,
Nitesh Shetty

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]