On Fri, Aug 17 2012 at 11:47pm -0400, Martin K. Petersen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Snitzer <[email protected]> writes: > > Mike> Could be I've wasted a few hours by rebasing these patches... > Mike> regardless, it would be great if you could share what your plans > Mike> are. > > Heh, I worked on syncing my patch queue up to Jens' and James' trees > this afternoon. But I didn't quite finish the block stuff, mainly due to > some conflicts with a few topology changes I also have pending. > > I'll take a look at your series. Maybe I'll swap things around and put > the topology changes on top instead of below. Leverage some of the work > you did... OK, just FYI, I had to change bio_has_data() to test bio->bi_vcnt (rather than bio->bi_io_vec != NULL) because a discard bio has a non-NULL bio->bi_io_vec (likely points to the bio->bi_inline_vecs but I didn't check yet). But I haven't put my finger on _why_ a discard bio has bio->bi_io_vec (but given my use of DM, bio comes from bio_alloc_bioset, and DM passes original bio->bi_max_vecs for nr_iovecs). Anyway, this bio_has_data() change seemed reasonable considering bio_data() checks bio->bi_vcnt. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
