On Tue, Apr 05 2016 at 9:04am -0400, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 08:07:35PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/md/dm-bufio.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c b/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c > > index cd77216..0e48ad7 100644 > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c > > @@ -624,8 +624,7 @@ static void use_inline_bio(struct dm_buffer *b, int rw, sector_t block, > > int len; > > > > bio_init(&b->bio); > > - b->bio.bi_io_vec = b->bio_vec; > > - b->bio.bi_max_vecs = DM_BUFIO_INLINE_VECS; > > + bio_set_vec_table(&b->bio, b->bio_vec, DM_BUFIO_INLINE_VECS); > > b->bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = block << b->c->sectors_per_block_bits; > > b->bio.bi_bdev = b->c->bdev; > > b->bio.bi_end_io = inline_endio; > > Should be switched to use bio_alloc instead. Why does the use of bio_init() vs bio_alloc() bother you? 'struct dm_buffer' has a 'struct bio'. That bio is allocated as part of the dm_buffer in drivers/md/dmbufio.c:alloc_buffer() -- which is called by various other bufio interfaces (e.g. __alloc_buffer_wait). Bufio is in control of ensuring forward progress by carefully managing the memory associated with these buffers. I don't see the benefit of bio_alloc() here. What am I missing? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
