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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1580626

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

From Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] block: introduce bio_clone_bioset_partial()
Date 2017-02-14 17:10 +0100
Message-ID <taNPX-41e-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> <tazMZ-38v-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


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.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

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