On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 01:09:05PM +0100, David Gstir wrote: > > > Additionally, after this change the name of the flag FS_WRITE_PATH_FL is > > misleading, since it now really indicates the presence of a bounce buffer > > rather > > than the "write path". > > I can see no use case for FS_WRITE_PATH_FL other than to indicate that the > bounce buffer has to be free'd. Is there any reason why we should not just > remove it and check the presence of a bounce buffer by a simple "if > (ctx->w.bounce_page)" ? >
It appears that the flag is needed because the 'w' (write) and 'r' (read) members are in union. So you can't simply check for 'ctx->w.bounce_page'. Eric
