On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 07:07:29PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 01:04:12PM +0100, Keith Busch wrote: > > An earlier version added a field in the bip to point to the original > > bvec from the user address. That extra field wouldn't be used in the far > > majority of cases, so moving the user bvec to the end of the existing > > bip_vec is a spatial optimization. The code may look a little more > > confusing that way, but I think it's better than making the bip bigger. > > I think we need to do something like that - just hiding the bounce > buffer is not really maintainable once we get multiple levels of stacking > and other creative bio cloning. Not sure I follow that. From patches 2-4 here, I think that pretty much covers it. It's just missing a good code comment, but the implementation side looks complete for any amount of stacking and splitting.
