Re: [PATCH]: block: try-2 (modified): Initialize bi_rw in mpage sobio_add can make use of it.

From: Muthu Kumar
Date: Mon Jul 18 2011 - 14:54:11 EST


Jens,
Here is the diff stats. Its changing more files than I expected. Let
me know what you think... (If this is OK I can also split and send the
patches for review).

FYI:
muthu@sakthi linux-2.6-head]$ wc -l blk-bio-init-rw-before-add-page.patch
1610 blk-bio-init-rw-before-add-page.patch

---------------------------
block/blk-core.c | 2 +-
block/blk-flush.c | 2 +-
block/blk-lib.c | 4 +-
block/blk-map.c | 12 ++++-----
drivers/block/drbd/drbd_actlog.c | 3 +-
drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c | 3 +-
drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c | 3 +-
drivers/block/floppy.c | 2 +-
drivers/block/loop.c | 2 +-
drivers/block/osdblk.c | 2 +-
drivers/block/pktcdvd.c | 15 +++++------
drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 2 +-
drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c | 4 +-
drivers/md/dm-crypt.c | 5 +--
drivers/md/dm-io.c | 2 +-
drivers/md/dm.c | 10 +++-----
drivers/md/md.c | 17 +++++++------
drivers/md/md.h | 2 +-
drivers/md/raid1.c | 7 +++++-
drivers/md/raid10.c | 7 +++++-
drivers/md/raid5.c | 2 +-
drivers/scsi/osd/osd_initiator.c | 21 ++++++----------
drivers/target/target_core_iblock.c | 3 +-
fs/bio.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
fs/btrfs/compression.c | 12 +++++-----
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 8 +++---
fs/btrfs/extent_io.h | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 21 +++++++++--------
fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 4 +-
fs/buffer.c | 2 +-
fs/direct-io.c | 12 +++++-----
fs/exofs/ios.c | 6 +++-
fs/ext4/page-io.c | 6 +++-
fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c | 6 +++-
fs/hfsplus/wrapper.c | 2 +-
fs/jfs/jfs_logmgr.c | 12 ++++++---
fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c | 4 +-
fs/logfs/dev_bdev.c | 10 ++++----
fs/mpage.c | 11 +++++----
fs/nfs/objlayout/objio_osd.c | 8 +++---
fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c | 9 ++++---
fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c | 9 ++++---
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c | 8 ++++--
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c | 2 +-
include/linux/bio.h | 10 ++++----
kernel/power/block_io.c | 2 +-
mm/bounce.c | 2 +-
mm/page_io.c | 14 ++++++-----
48 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 170 deletions(-)
-----------------------------------


On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2011-07-11 19:52, Muthu Kumar wrote:
>>> For this particular case, doing it when the bio is allocated makes more
>>> sense. That will avoid a similar error in there in the future.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds good. Thanks. How about for other cases that alloc a new bio
>> and do bio_add_page() - like blkdev_issue_zeroout() and similar.
>> Should we add there too?
>
> Good question, ideally the allocator should be passed in the rw argument
> since we need it before even submitting it for the merge cases. We don't
> have _that_ many callers of bio_alloc() or bio_kmalloc(), so probably
> the best option is just to bite the bullet and change the prototypes to
> take the 'rw' argument there. Oh, and the bioset variants, too.
> bio_init() should be passed the 'rw' argument from the allcators, so we
> catch any private use of that, too.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
>
--
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/