On 06/10/2009 05:15 AM, 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).
For my needs for example dst->cmd will be different then
src->cmd. Could be untouched. The caller will set what he
needs.
dst->sense should be untouched, caller can set to src->sense
if he wants to. Or like me he already have another buffer.
dst->buffer is always NULL in my path so I don't know
what that is. Tejun?
It should only be about bios and lengths.
And a big fat comment about what it does and what it
does not.
> 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
Thanks
Boaz
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
