From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:28:29 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Alexander Viro , Kent Overstreet , David Sterba , Huang Ying , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Theodore Ts'o , "Darrick J . Wong" , Coly Li , Filipe Manana , Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 15/30] block: introduce bio_clone_chunk_bioset() Message-ID: <20180614072828.GA26621@ming.t460p> References: <20180609123014.8861-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20180609123014.8861-16-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20180613145654.GE4693@infradead.org> <20180614020137.GF19828@ming.t460p> <20180614063920.GA10284@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180614063920.GA10284@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:39:20PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:01:38AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > Bounce limits the max pages as 256 will do bio splitting, so won't need > > this change. > > Behavior for the bounce code does not change with my patch. > > The important points are: > > - the default interface (bio_clone_bioset in this case) should always > operate on full biosets > - if the bounce code needs bioves limited to single pages it should > be treated as the special case > - given that the bounce code is inside the block layer using the > __-prefixed internal interface is perfectly fine > - last but not least I think the parameter switching the behavior > needs a much more descriptive name as suggested in my patch Fair enough, will switch to this way and avoid DM's change, even though it is a dying interface. Thanks, Ming