Re: [patch 1/2]block: handle merged discard request

[Mike Snitzer]

On Fri, Aug 17 2012 at 11:47pm -0400,
Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> Mike> Could be I've wasted a few hours by rebasing these patches...
> Mike> regardless, it would be great if you could share what your plans
> Mike> are.
> 
> Heh, I worked on syncing my patch queue up to Jens' and James' trees
> this afternoon. But I didn't quite finish the block stuff, mainly due to
> some conflicts with a few topology changes I also have pending.
> 
> I'll take a look at your series. Maybe I'll swap things around and put
> the topology changes on top instead of below. Leverage some of the work
> you did...

OK, just FYI, I had to change bio_has_data() to test bio->bi_vcnt
(rather than bio->bi_io_vec != NULL) because a discard bio has a
non-NULL bio->bi_io_vec (likely points to the bio->bi_inline_vecs but I
didn't check yet).

But I haven't put my finger on _why_ a discard bio has bio->bi_io_vec
(but given my use of DM, bio comes from bio_alloc_bioset, and DM passes
original bio->bi_max_vecs for nr_iovecs).

Anyway, this bio_has_data() change seemed reasonable considering
bio_data() checks bio->bi_vcnt.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/