On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 07:23:05PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:17:15PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > I still think they should be symmetrical, but if that's true bi_ioc and > > bi_css need to be moved, and also bio_disassociate_task() should be > > getting called from bio_free(), not bio_put(). > > > > Were you the one that added that call? I know you've been working on > > that area of the code recently. Sticking it in bio_put() instead of > > bio_free() seems odd to be, and they're completely equivalent now that > > bio_free() is only called from bio_put() (save one instance I should > > probably fix). > > Maybe I botched symmetry but anyways I *suspect* it probably would be > better to keep css association across bio_reset() give the current > usages of both mechanisms. css association indicates the ownership of > the bio which isn't likely to change while recycling the bio. Thought about it more and while you're right that css association isn't likely to change, it'd just be a needless difference. bio_reset() should be as close to a bio_free()/bio_alloc() as possible, IMO. Fixed my patches to do it right, though. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
