Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1580176 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1580176 — Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial()

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1580626

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:04:26AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> 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?

I meant to just pass the additional arguments that 
bio_clone_bioset_partial has to bio_clone_bioset.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1581002

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:04:26AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I meant to just pass the additional arguments that
> bio_clone_bioset_partial has to bio_clone_bioset.

That may cause more changes(fs, ...) into this patchset, so I suggest to
do that in another patchset, especially after we confirmed current
users of bio_clone is absolutely necessary, and I will check if other bio_clone
can be converted to fast clone.


Thanks,
Ming Lei

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web