On Wed, Jun 10 2009, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> 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.
I just worry that the interface is easy to misuse. You don't document
the requirement that the src request may not go away while dst is used,
yet it's an important fact. The function advertises itself as a copy,
you would not normally expect any such restrictions.
--
Jens Axboe
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
