From: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: Modify blk_rq_map_user to support large requests
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:38:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45085E20.7070003@cs.wisc.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060913093009.GF23515@kernel.dk>
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 09 2006, Mike Christie wrote:
>> Currently, there is some duplication between bsg, scsi_ioctl.c
>> and scsi_lib.c/sg/st in its mapping code. This patch modifies
>> the block layer blk_rq_map_user code to support large requests so
>> that the scsi and block drivers can use this common code. The
>> changes also make it so the callers do not have to account for
>> the bio to be unmapped and bounce buffers.
>>
>> The next patch then coverts bsg.c, scsi_ioctl.c and cdrom.c
>> to use the updated functions. For scsi_ioctl.c and cdrom.c
>> the only thing that changes is that they no longer have
>> to do the bounce buffer management and pass in the len for
>> the unmapping. The bsg change is a little larger since that
>> code was duplicating a lot of code that is now common
>> in the block layer. The bsg conversions als should fix
>> a memory leak caused when unmapping a hdr with iovec_count=0.
>>
>> Patch was made over Jens's block tree and the bsg branch
>
> Generally it looks good - two comments:
>
> - I see some advantages to having biohead_orig to avoid keeping track of
> it and passing it around, but there's also good reasons for _not_
> adding more stuff to struct request. Any particular reason you chose
> to do that?
I think I originally made a mistake with the bounce buffers and thinking
that others may do the same I felt that hiding a lot of the magic that
is going on in blk_rq_map_user was nice. By adding the field to the
request, the caller would only have to map the data and then unmap the
request. Since not even a handful of drivers would ever use the api, I
agree that adding the field for this limited use could be overkill.
>
> - blk_get_bounced_bio() looks redundant. BIO_BOUNCED should only be set
> on a bounced bio, and ->bi_private should always hold that bounced
> bio.
>
Ok, I will remove that.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-13 19:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-09 20:53 [PATCH 1/2] block: Modify blk_rq_map_user to support large requests Mike Christie
2006-09-13 9:30 ` Jens Axboe
2006-09-13 19:38 ` Mike Christie [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=45085E20.7070003@cs.wisc.edu \
--to=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).