On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:10:01PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:34:46PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > [..] > > diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h > > index 4e32be1..d985e90 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/bio.h > > +++ b/include/linux/bio.h > > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ > > #define bio_offset(bio) bio_iovec((bio))->bv_offset > > #define bio_segments(bio) ((bio)->bi_vcnt - (bio)->bi_idx) > > #define bio_sectors(bio) ((bio)->bi_size >> 9) > > +#define bio_end_sector(bio) ((bio)->bi_sector + bio_sectors(bio)) > > May be it is just me. But bio_end_sector() kind of sounds that it will > calculate to the last sector of bio. So I thought of it more as > bio_last_sector() and not the sector which is next to the last sector. > > Will it make sense to introduce bio_last_sector() and use +1 everywhere. > Or may be we need a better name. Can't think of one though. Ugh, that sounds like it'd be just begging for fencepost errors. I've never ran into a situation where I needed bio->bi_sector + bio_sectors(bio) - 1, either. I kind of see your point... it seems like there should be a name for this concept (same as a pointer to the end of an array), but I can't think of one. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
