Hi Jens,
On 06/10/2009 03:03 AM +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09 2009, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Copy request information of the original request to the clone request.
>> + */
>> +static void __blk_rq_prep_clone(struct request *dst, struct request *src)
>> +{
>> + dst->cpu = src->cpu;
>> + dst->cmd_flags = (rq_data_dir(src) | REQ_NOMERGE);
>> + dst->cmd_type = src->cmd_type;
>> + dst->__sector = blk_rq_pos(src);
>> + dst->__data_len = blk_rq_bytes(src);
>> + dst->nr_phys_segments = src->nr_phys_segments;
>> + dst->ioprio = src->ioprio;
>> + dst->buffer = src->buffer;
>> + dst->cmd_len = src->cmd_len;
>> + dst->cmd = src->cmd;
>
> Are you making sure that 'src' always exists while 'dst' is alive?
Yes.
Request-based dm is the owner of 'src' (original) and
it never frees 'src' until the 'dst' (clone) are completed.
I avoided deep-copying __cmd/buffer/sense as it's costly
(additional allocation and memcpy).
And I don't think there are any needs for that.
But if anyone really wants that even with the copying cost,
please speak up.
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
