On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:25:15PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:08:30PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > @@ -422,7 +409,11 @@ void bio_put(struct bio *bio)
> > if (atomic_dec_and_test(&bio->bi_cnt)) {
> > bio_disassociate_task(bio);
> > bio->bi_next = NULL;
> > - bio->bi_destructor(bio);
> > +
> > + if (bio->bi_pool)
> > + bio_free(bio, bio->bi_pool);
> > + else
> > + bio->bi_destructor(bio);
>
> So, this bi_pool overriding caller specified custom bi_destructor is
> rather unusual. I know why it's like that - the patch series is
> gradually replacing bi_destructor with bi_pool and removes
> bi_destructor eventually, but it would be far better if at least patch
> description says why this is unusual like this.
Ok, I'll stick a comment in there:
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&bio->bi_cnt)) {
bio_disassociate_task(bio);
bio->bi_next = NULL;
/*
* This if statement is temporary - bi_pool is replacing
* bi_destructor, but bi_destructor will be taken out in another
* patch.
*/
if (bio->bi_pool)
bio_free(bio, bio->bi_pool);
else
bio->bi_destructor(bio);
}
>
> 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
