On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:16:21 -0400 "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If all subdevices support the same protection format the DM device is
> flagged as capable.
>
> ..
..
> + /* Register dm device as being integrity capable */
> + if (prev && bdev_get_integrity(prev->bdev)) {
> + struct gendisk *disk = dm_disk(md);
> +
> + if (blk_integrity_register(dm_disk(md),
Please use checkpatch. Always. There's just no reason not to. Sure,
you can make a decision to ignore some of its reports, but at least
this avoids the accidental introduction of layout problems.
> + bdev_get_integrity(prev->bdev)))
> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: %s Could not register integrity!\n",
> + __func__, disk->disk_name);
> + else
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Enabling data integrity on %s\n",
> + disk->disk_name);
> + }
> }
>
> ...
>
> + if (bio_integrity(bio)) {
> + bio_integrity_clone(clone, bio, bs);
> +
> + if (idx != bio->bi_idx || clone->bi_size < bio->bi_size)
> + bio_integrity_trim(clone, bio_sector_offset(bio, idx, 0), len);
For better or for worse, the developers of dm.c have chosen to keep the
whole file presentable in an 80-col display. This patch breaks that,
and they might not like this.
> + }
> +
> return clone;
> }
>
> @@ -1108,6 +1121,7 @@ static struct mapped_device *alloc_dev(int minor)
> md->disk->queue = md->queue;
> md->disk->private_data = md;
> sprintf(md->disk->disk_name, "dm-%d", minor);
> + printk(KERN_ERR "DM: Created %s\n", md->disk->disk_name);
> add_disk(md->disk);
> format_dev_t(md->name, MKDEV(_major, minor));
>
> @@ -1157,6 +1171,7 @@ static void free_dev(struct mapped_device *md)
> mempool_destroy(md->tio_pool);
> mempool_destroy(md->io_pool);
> bioset_free(md->bs);
> + blk_integrity_unregister(md->disk);
> del_gendisk(md->disk);
> free_minor(minor);
>
> @@ -1200,7 +1215,6 @@ static void __set_size(struct mapped_device *md, sector_t size)
>
> static int __bind(struct mapped_device *md, struct dm_table *t)
> {
> - struct request_queue *q = md->queue;
> sector_t size;
>
> size = dm_table_get_size(t);
> @@ -1221,7 +1235,7 @@ static int __bind(struct mapped_device *md, struct dm_table *t)
>
> write_lock(&md->map_lock);
> md->map = t;
> - dm_table_set_restrictions(t, q);
> + dm_table_set_restrictions(t, md);
> write_unlock(&md->map_lock);
>
> return 0;
> @@ -1674,9 +1688,17 @@ void dm_uevent_add(struct mapped_device *md, struct list_head *elist)
> */
> struct gendisk *dm_disk(struct mapped_device *md)
> {
> + BUG_ON(md == NULL);
This will provide no more information than the oops which will happen
two lines later.
> + BUG_ON(md->disk == NULL);
well, that will provide a little bit of information I guess.
> return md->disk;
> }
>
> +struct request_queue *dm_queue(struct mapped_device *md)
> +{
> + return md->queue;
> +}
This (unused, undocumented) function should be inlined.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
