On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Joe Thornber wrote:
> 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.
BTW. it still uses the old block number in "prepare_for_write" callback.
Do you use this block number somewhere? Should we link the buffer to the
new block before the call and the link it back?
Mikulas
> - Joe
>
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
