From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751543AbdEBVrj (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 May 2017 17:47:39 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53621 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751247AbdEBVrg (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 May 2017 17:47:36 -0400 From: NeilBrown To: Christoph Hellwig Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 07:47:29 +1000 Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Ming Lei , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] blk: replace bioset_create_nobvec() with a flags arg to bioset_create() In-Reply-To: <20170502080617.GA5578@infradead.org> References: <149369628671.5146.4865312503373040039.stgit@noble> <149369654407.5146.12779672368228096310.stgit@noble> <20170502080617.GA5578@infradead.org> Message-ID: <8760hjq6by.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 02 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h >> index d1b04b0e99cf..0975da6bebd9 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/bio.h >> +++ b/include/linux/bio.h >> @@ -373,8 +373,10 @@ static inline struct bio *bio_next_split(struct bio= *bio, int sectors, >> return bio_split(bio, sectors, gfp, bs); >> } >>=20=20 >> -extern struct bio_set *bioset_create(unsigned int, unsigned int); >> -extern struct bio_set *bioset_create_nobvec(unsigned int, unsigned int); >> +extern struct bio_set *bioset_create(unsigned int, unsigned int, int fl= ags); >> +enum { >> + BIOSET_NEED_BVECS =3D BIT(0), >> +}; > > I really hate the BIT macro as it obsfucates what's going on. So post a patch to remove it from the tree. I happen to like it, but I wouldn't fight for it. > > Why not just > > BIOSET_NEED_BVECS =3D (1 << 0), > > which is a lot more intuitive. > > Otherwise looks fine to me: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Thanks, NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAlkI/nEACgkQOeye3VZi gblIPBAAiMFgYoae49mqKbyBBi1tqWvecYRuvJqumWf4241UfHaqq/h4fAgViIQJ YtQKiex9mEZWtr+OknPWeKk2oEhF+pGYJTeRUHnLyaVqMgsyh5dDHhCCeo6bg/FH jMmaLkAjsWPtiITvZ5lFHVEXTsusjsWyBCB/vyS5n5uwsZrl5ZEPxV30XO0Yb3BN Z/hoA70j3kWGc6FkrK38r+4MQDK4n+wz3EO16YasDV3VoVuue+ji834dlrhbkMMH SoIWkIM7Ka3ih4105NdP5BgvjfZ6u21Kd/KKttIOopRSGLDTvD7gYZullsyTrSWJ 4rScg4ZlaoZ9vekF3i10LkblfrbAG+Rz7yaAjbB+bw4fv5TXfix5air5PtPFjBHU 1+Q2anbHfVnoshnok72Y3Y4fuPxBbwWNzC656lDg3b3FNXe4P/yrn0GfLnztqyUe u0lQccJNiwhifVNqZaMPsAlDqGlqjIRtLpcUxIpwBUY4S04HYsyTYi4mLClf1JIf fsJyT9JChutiMxrygaVCkfscI6RbZjnQwTVaP071JprvcS3N4c9w7wxotRiKfTBg yhEbA1g6gMSz+ClNObzp/gP7BGv37+Xlx3Be0t/StMicSveijtIdCCUpLs+0C8nt hBUW81U98FTLeJazbtMdrhmmX/5qpa9PuMYwX5B+YtlUcjQX4Gw= =WfZO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--