Hello, On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24:18PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > I'd prefer simply adding @bioset to bio_clone() so that the caller > > always has to make the choice consciously. We're updating all the > > callers anyway. > > Possibly, but the btrfs code uses bio_clone() and there fs_bio_set may > be correct (will have to look at what it's doing, if it's cloning a bio > that was allocated out of fs_bio_set that would be bad..) Yeah, I think it's generally a good idea to require explicit bioset specification even if that ends up being fs_bio_set or NULL. > I would also prefer to simply drop bio_clone() so that > bio_clone_bioset() matches bio_alloc_bioset(), but regardless that'll > have to be a different patch (and I don't think I've had to update any > of the bio_clone() callers in this patch series anyways). Ooh yeah, bio_clone_bioset() would be the better name for it. Thanks. -- tejun -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
