On 11/07/2013 01:25 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:20:26PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >> On 11/02/2013 03:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >>> On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> >>>> So we've three immediate options: >>>> >>>> 1) You base it on top of the block tree >>>> 2) I carry the loop updates >>>> 3) You hand Stephen a merge patch for the resulting merge of the two >>> >>> Attached is a merge patch and the merged loop.c. I'm having problems >>> with the loop driver with both the block and my tree. I'll continue to >>> look at that, but everything should build cleanly with this. >> >> Looking back, I obviously rushed the last patch out. This merge patch, >> and the resulting loop.c, fix my problem. My code is working with Jens' >> block tree now. >> >> Jens, >> I ended up replacing a call to bio_iovec_idx() with __bvec_iter_bvec() >> since the former was removed. It's not very elegant, but it works. I'm >> open to suggestions on a cleaner fix, but it can wait until one or both >> of these trees is merged. > > No, that's definitely wrong. Read Documentation/block/biovecs.txt - you > need to use either the new bio_iovec() or bio_iovec() iter. I can do the > conversion later today. I appreciate your help. The patchset requires that the iov_iter structure can contain either a user-space iovec or a bio_vec, so that the iov_iter can be passed down transparently into the filesystems. I'll be happy any way we can get that to work. Thanks, Shaggy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
