Hello, On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 05:21:54PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > What's wrong with good ol' NULL? > > If it's NULL, we can't distinguish between bios where that field wasn't > set (i.e. bios that were statically allocated somewhere) from bios that > were allocated by bio_kmalloc(). > > It's just there to make debugging easier - if bi_cnt goes to 0 on a bio > where it shouldn't we'll catch it at the BUG_ON() in bio_free() instead > of kfreeing a bad pointer. I fail to see how that improves anything. slab will complain clearly if it gets passed in a pointer to static area. The benefit is imaginery. If there's no bioset, it's NULL. Let's please keep things usual. Thanks. -- tejun -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
