From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755471Ab2IACTT (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:19:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:52159 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755352Ab2IACTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:19:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:19:16 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Kent Overstreet Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, mpatocka@redhat.com, bharrosh@panasas.com, Jens Axboe , NeilBrown , Alasdair Kergon , Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/9] block: Add bio_clone_bioset(), bio_clone_kmalloc() Message-ID: <20120901021916.GD19535@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <1346175456-1572-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <1346175456-1572-8-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <20120828204401.GF24608@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120828220532.GB1048@moria.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120828220532.GB1048@moria.home.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:05:32PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:44:01PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:37:34AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > +static inline struct bio *bio_clone(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > > +{ > > > + return bio_clone_bioset(bio, gfp_mask, fs_bio_set); > > > +} > > > + > > ... > > > +static inline struct bio *bio_clone_kmalloc(struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > > +{ > > > + return bio_clone_bioset(bio, gfp_mask, NULL); > > > + > > > +} > > > > Do we really need these wrappers? I'd prefer requiring users to > > explicit choose @bioset when cloning. > > bio_clone() is an existing api, I agree but I'd prefer to convert > existing users in a separate patch and when I do that I want to spend > some time actually looking at the existing code instead of doing the > conversion blindly (at least some of the existing users are incorrect > and I'll have to add bio_sets for them). Aren't there like three users in kernel? If you wanna clean it up later, that's fine too but I don't think it would make much difference either way. Thanks. -- tejun