On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 9:53 AM Ming Lei <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:34:42PM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote: > > Factor a helper function ublk_copy_user_bvec() out of > > ublk_copy_user_pages(). It will be used for copying integrity data too. > > > > Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c > > index d3652ceba96d..0499add560b5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c > > @@ -987,10 +987,39 @@ static const struct block_device_operations ub_fops = > > { > > .open = ublk_open, > > .free_disk = ublk_free_disk, > > .report_zones = ublk_report_zones, > > }; > > > > +static bool ublk_copy_user_bvec(struct bio_vec bv, unsigned *offset, > > bv could be better to define as `const struct bio_vec *` for avoiding copy, > otherwise this patch looks fine.
I was thinking it probably didn't matter much as the compiler was likely to inline the function call. But sure, I can pass it by pointer. Thanks, Caleb
