On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:08:40PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> This consolidates some code, and will help in a later patch changing how
> bio cloning works.
I think it would be better to introduce bio_clone*() functions in a
separate patch and convert the users in a different one.
> /**
> - * bio_clone - clone a bio
> + * bio_clone_bioset - clone a bio
> * @bio: bio to clone
> * @gfp_mask: allocation priority
> + * @bs: bio_set to allocate from
> *
> * Like __bio_clone, only also allocates the returned bio
> */
> -struct bio *bio_clone(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +struct bio *bio_clone_bioset(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> + struct bio_set *bs)
> {
> - struct bio *b = bio_alloc(gfp_mask, bio->bi_max_vecs);
> + struct bio *b = bio_alloc_bioset(gfp_mask, bio->bi_max_vecs, bs);
>
> if (!b)
> return NULL;
> @@ -485,7 +487,7 @@ struct bio *bio_clone(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> if (bio_integrity(bio)) {
> int ret;
>
> - ret = bio_integrity_clone(b, bio, gfp_mask, fs_bio_set);
> + ret = bio_integrity_clone(b, bio, gfp_mask, bs);
>
> if (ret < 0) {
> bio_put(b);
> @@ -495,6 +497,12 @@ struct bio *bio_clone(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>
> return b;
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(bio_clone_bioset);
> +
> +struct bio *bio_clone(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> +{
> + return bio_clone_bioset(bio, gfp_mask, fs_bio_set);
> +}
So, bio_clone() loses its function comment. Also, does it even make
sense to call bio_clone() from fs_bio_set? Let's say it's so, then
what's the difference from using _kmalloc variant?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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
