On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:05:26AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> 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).
thinp uses dm_bufio_release_move() and write_callback. So yes, this
is a bug fix. I thought so and merged.
- Joe
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
