On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 27 2010, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>>> merge_bvec_fn() returns bvec->bv_len on success. So we have to check
>>> against this value. But in case of fs_optimization merge we compare
>>> with wrong value. This patch must be included in
>>> b428cd6da7e6559aca69aa2e3a526037d3f20403
>>> But accidentally i've forgot to add this in the initial patch.
>>> To make things straight let's replace all such checks.
>>> In fact this makes code easy to understand.
>>
>> Agree, applied.
> Ohh.. as you already know this patch break dm-layer. Sorry.
> This is because dm->merge may return more than requested. So correct
> check must test against less what requested. Correct patch attached.
Yes, it is quite common for dm_merge_bvec() to return greater than the
requested length.
But dm_merge_bvec() returning a maximum length, rather than requested,
isn't special. All the other blk_queue_merge_bvec() callers' merge
functions appear to return "maximum amount of bytes we can accept at
this offset" too.
__bio_add_page() only needs to care about whether the
'q->merge_bvec_fn' return is _less than_ the requested length.
> From 145fb49bf2251f445ca29c5218333367448932d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:28:06 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] blkdev: fix merge_bvec_fn return value checks v2
>
> merge_bvec_fn() returns bvec->bv_len on success. So we have to check
> against this value. But in case of fs_optimization merge we compare
> with wrong value. This patch must be included in
> b428cd6da7e6559aca69aa2e3a526037d3f20403
> But accidentally i've forgot to add this in the initial patch.
> To make things straight let's replace all such checks.
> In fact this makes code easy to understand.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/bio.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/bio.c b/fs/bio.c
> index 88094af..975657a 100644
> --- a/fs/bio.c
> +++ b/fs/bio.c
> @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
> .bi_rw = bio->bi_rw,
> };
>
> - if (q->merge_bvec_fn(q, &bvm, prev) < len) {
> + if (q->merge_bvec_fn(q, &bvm, prev) < prev->bv_len) {
> prev->bv_len -= len;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ static int __bio_add_page(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, struct page
> * merge_bvec_fn() returns number of bytes it can accept
> * at this offset
> */
> - if (q->merge_bvec_fn(q, &bvm, bvec) < len) {
> + if (q->merge_bvec_fn(q, &bvm, bvec) < bvec->bv_len) {
> bvec->bv_page = NULL;
> bvec->bv_len = 0;
> bvec->bv_offset = 0;
NOTE this 2nd hunk doesn't change anything at all because: bvec->bv_len = len;
Mike
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
