On Monday 06 December 2004 7:55 am, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06 2004, Kevin Corry wrote: > > Hi Adrian, > > > > On Monday 06 December 2004 6:09 am, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > drivers/md/dm-io.c copies functionality from bio.c . > > > > > > Is there a specific reason why you don't simply use the functionality > > > bio.c provides? > > > > Can you give some specific examples of the functionality you think is > > duplicated? Meanwhile, I'll take a look and see if I can explain any code > > overlaps. > > Ah come on Kevin, a 2 second glance shows lots of uneccesary > duplication. Basically only the concept of the bio_set is not duplicated > in the first many lines, you even set up matching slabs. > > How was that ever accepted for merging? If I recall correctly (and it's been a while since I've looked at that code), the bio_set was added because a few DM modules like to initiate their own I/O requests (things like snapshots and DM's kcopyd daemon), and we felt it was better to allow these modules to each create their own mempools to allocate bios from, rather than allocate from the single kernel-wide bio pool used by the filesystem layer. Strictly speaking (and as you mentioned), the slabs in the bio_set are unnecessary, and they could use the global bio_slab. But there's probably some argument to be made for having separate bio mempools for these modules. Actually, I also seem to recall discussions with Joe Thornber from quite awhile ago about trying to move this bio_set functionality into fs/bio.c, to allow other device drivers to create their own private bio pools. If you think something like this would be desireable, I can try to look into the specifics again. If you think that having the single kernel-wide bio pool is sufficient for all filesystems and device-drivers (you certainly understand the trade-offs better than I do), then I can look into removing the necessary code from dm-io.c -- Kevin Corry kevcorry@xxxxxxxxxx http://evms.sourceforge.net/