[ Resending in plain text... sorry for the duplicate ]
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:55:59AM +0800, majianpeng wrote:
> > On 2012-07-31 05:42 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:14:28PM +0800, majianpeng wrote:
> > >> When exec bio_alloc, the bi_rw is zero.But after calling
> > >> bio_add_page,
> > >> it will use bi_rw.
> > >> Fox example, in functiion __bio_add_page,it will call
> > >> merge_bvec_fn().
> > >> The merge_bvec_fn of raid456 will use the bi_rw to judge the merge.
> > >> >> if ((bvm->bi_rw & 1) == WRITE)
> > >> >> return biovec->bv_len; /* always allow writes to be mergeable */
> > >
> > >So if bio_add_page() requires bi_rw to be set, then shouldn't it be
> > >set up for every caller? I noticed there are about 50 call sites for
> > >bio_add_page(), and you've only touched about 10 of them. Indeed, I
> > >notice that the RAID0/1 code uses bio_add_page, and as that can be
> > >stacked on top of RAID456, it also needs to set bi_rw correctly.
> > >As a result, your patch set is nowhere near complete, not does it
> > >document that bio_add_page requires that bi_rw be set before calling
> > >(which is the new API requirement, AFAICT).
> > There are many place call bio_add_page and I send some of those. Because
> > my abilty, so I only send
> > some patchs which i understand clearly.
> Sure, but my point is that there is no point changing only a few and
> ignoring the great majority of callers. Either fix them all, fix it
> some other way (e.g. API change), or remove the code from the RAID5
> function that requires it.
A while back, we tried to address this by changing the alloc functions to
take rw argument and set it (as per Jens suggestion). I guess the patch did
not make it in. Please check:
and the follow ups. If needed, I can dust up that patch and resend it.
> It's entirely possible that when bi_rw was added to struct
> bvec_merge_data, the person who added it was mistaken that bi_rw was
> set at this point in time when in fact it never has been. Hence it's
> presence and reliance on it would be a bug.
> That's what I'm asking - is this actually beneificial, or should it
> simply be removed from struct bvec_merge_data? Data is needed to
> answer that question....
There are cases where we found it really beneficial to know the rw
field to decide if the can be really merged or not.
> Dave Chinner
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/