On 26 Jan 11:09, Jack Wang wrote:
> >
> > - if (bio->bi_end_io != md_end_io) {
> > - struct md_io *md_io;
> > -
> > - md_io = mempool_alloc(&mddev->md_io_pool, GFP_NOIO);
> > - md_io->mddev = mddev;
> > - md_io->orig_bi_end_io = bio->bi_end_io;
> > - md_io->orig_bi_private = bio->bi_private;
> > -
> > - bio->bi_end_io = md_end_io;
> > - bio->bi_private = md_io;
> > -
> > - md_io->start_time = part_start_io_acct(mddev->gendisk,
> > - &md_io->part, bio);
> > - }
> > -
> > + /*
> > + * save the sectors now since our bio can
> > + * go away inside make_request
> > + */
> > + sectors = bio_sectors(bio);
> This code snip is not inside the original patch, and it's not in
> latest upstream too.
> > /* bio could be mergeable after passing to underlayer */
> > bio->bi_opf &= ~REQ_NOMERGE;
> >
> > md_handle_request(mddev, bio);
> >
> > + part_stat_lock();
> > + part_stat_inc(&mddev->gendisk->part0, ios[sgrp]);
> > + part_stat_add(&mddev->gendisk->part0, sectors[sgrp], sectors);
> > + part_stat_unlock();
> > +
> same here, this code snip is not inside the original patch, and it's
> not in latest upstream too.
Both snippets came from the code before 41d2d848e5c0 that the patch is
being reverted here. As I explained in my original message, upstream is
different because of 99dfc43ecbf6 which is not in 5.10.
> I think would be good keep it as the upstream version.
If you don't include these lines, isn't this worse as it's not calling
either part_start_io_acct or bio_start_io_acct (in 99dfc43ecbf6)?
--
Guillaume Morin <guillaume@xxxxxxxxxxx>
