On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:49:09PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14 2019 at 9:08pm -0500,
Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 57c36519e4b949f89381053f7283f5d605595b42 ]
DM's clone_bio() now benefits from using bio_trim() by fixing the fact
that clone_bio() wasn't clearing BIO_SEG_VALID like bio_trim() does;
which triggers blk_recount_segments() via bio_phys_segments().
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Please no, I later effectively reverted this change with commit
fa8db4948f522 ("dm: don't use bio_trim() afterall")
I've dropped it, thank you.
(As and aside, I really shouldn't have to defend against stable@ bots
picking up a commit, like 57c36519e4b949f, that wasn't marked for
stable@.)
Is it the case that this commit isn't appropriate for stable for some
reason, or was it just buggy?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
