On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:09:03AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:59:51PM -0400, koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > @@ -729,7 +729,7 @@ static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, struct bio **next,
> > }
> >
> > while (old_chain && (total < len)) {
> > - tmp = bio_kmalloc(gfpmask, old_chain->bi_max_vecs);
> > + tmp = bio_clone_kmalloc(old_chain, gfpmask);
> > if (!tmp)
> > goto err_out;
> >
> > @@ -751,13 +751,9 @@ static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, struct bio **next,
> > if (!bp)
> > goto err_out;
> >
> > - __bio_clone(tmp, &bp->bio1);
> > -
>
> This effectively swaps the order of bio_split() and __bio_clone(). Is
> that safe? Also, please cc the maintainer.
Now that I look at that code some more, I'm not sure it was quite right
before - that or I don't follow how it's supposed to work.
That bio_split() effectively does its own clone, so it seems to me the
bio_kmalloc()/bio_clone_kmalloc() should only be happening in the non
split case.
Also, there's a bio_chain_clone in drivers/block/osdblk.c that looks
like it's doing something similar, probably we should have some generic
code for this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
