On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Joe Thornber wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> @@ -493,8 +500,10 @@ static void use_inline_bio(struct dm_buf
> static void submit_io(struct dm_buffer *b, int rw, sector_t block,
> bio_end_io_t *end_io)
> {
> - if (b->c->block_size <= DM_BUFIO_INLINE_VECS * PAGE_SIZE &&
> - b->data_mode != DATA_MODE_VMALLOC)
> + if (rw == WRITE && b->c->write_callback)
> + b->c->write_callback(b);
> if (likely(b->c->block_size <= DM_BUFIO_INLINE_VECS * PAGE_SIZE) &&
> likely(b->data_mode != DATA_MODE_VMALLOC))
> use_inline_bio(b, rw, block, end_io);
> else
> use_dmio(b, rw, block, end_io);
> @@ -550,8 +559,6 @@ static void __write_dirty_buffer(struct
> clear_bit(B_DIRTY, &b->state);
> wait_on_bit_lock(&b->state, B_WRITING,
> do_io_schedule, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> - if (b->c->write_callback)
> - b->c->write_callback(b);
> submit_io(b, WRITE, b->block, write_endio);
> }
>
>
> This doesn't seem an improvement. Except ... it changes the behaviour
> of dm_bufio_release_move(). So was there a preexisting bug in
> dm_bufio_release_move() that you're trying to fix with this patch?
The actual reason was to do this callback in dm_bufio_release_move() too
--- just for consistency. (the user of dm_bufio_release_move() doesn't use
write_callback anyway).
Mikulas
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
