On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:01:11AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > Flush supoprt for dm-delay target. > @@ -281,6 +282,8 @@ static int delay_map(struct dm_target *t > bio->bi_bdev = dc->dev_write->bdev; > bio->bi_sector = dc->start_write + > (bio->bi_sector - ti->begin); > + if (!bio_sectors(bio)) > + bio->bi_sector = 0; Why set bio->bi_sector twice on that path? Should we instead guarantee it's 0 before calling? > > return delay_bio(dc, dc->write_delay, bio); > } Is flushing different - do we really want to delay it? (I'd have thought not. But if so, should it be a separate option?) Alasdair -- agk@xxxxxxxxxx -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
