No problem. I will change the patch to remove this extra read. Thanks.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2019/12/9 3:37 下午, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 05:44:38PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> >>> {
> >>> - struct cache_sb *out = page_address(bio_first_page_all(bio));
> >>> + struct cache_sb *out;
> >>> unsigned int i;
> >>> + struct buffer_head *bh;
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * The page is held since read_super, this __bread * should not
> >>> + * cause an extra io read.
> >>> + */
> >>> + bh = __bread(bdev, 1, SB_SIZE);
> >>> + if (!bh)
> >>> + goto out_bh;
> >>> +
> >>> + out = (struct cache_sb *) bh->b_data;
> >>
> >> This is quite tricky here. Could you please to move this code piece into
> >> an inline function and add code comments to explain why a read is
> >> necessary for a write.
> >
> > A read is not nessecary. He only added it because he was too fearful
> > of calculating the data offset directly. But calculating it directly
> > is almost trivial and should just be done here. Alternatively if that
> > is still to hard just keep a pointer to the cache_sb around, which is
> > how most file systems do it.
> >
> Copied, if Liang does not have time to handle this as your suggestion, I
> will handle it.
>
> Thanks for the hint.
>
> --
>
> Coly Li
