Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1580176
| From | Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial() |
| Date | 2017-02-14 02:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tazMZ-38v-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <t9h5M-2lX-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <t9h5M-2lX-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <tapaV-4mz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> 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? > > Otherwise looks fine: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Thanks! -- Ming Lei
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial() Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial() Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2017-02-13 14:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial() Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 02:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial() Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2017-02-14 17:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial() Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 03:30 +0100
csiph-web