On 09/19/2017 10:36 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 08:55:59AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>>> But can you elaborate a little more on how this found and if there
>>> is a way to easily reproduce it, say for a blktests test case?
>>>
>> It is found when I made the patch of
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 08:55:59AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> > But can you elaborate a little more on how this found and if there
> > is a way to easily reproduce it, say for a blktests test case?
> >
> It is found when I made the patch of
> 'block: consider merge of segments when merge bio
On 09/19/2017 07:51 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 07:10:30AM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
>> If the bio_integrity_merge_rq() return false or nr_phys_segments exceeds
>> the max_segments, the merging fails, but the bi_front/back_seg_size may
>> have been modified. To avoid
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 07:10:30AM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> If the bio_integrity_merge_rq() return false or nr_phys_segments exceeds
> the max_segments, the merging fails, but the bi_front/back_seg_size may
> have been modified. To avoid it, move the sanity checking ahead.
>
> Signed-off-by:
If the bio_integrity_merge_rq() return false or nr_phys_segments exceeds
the max_segments, the merging fails, but the bi_front/back_seg_size may
have been modified. To avoid it, move the sanity checking ahead.
Signed-off-by: Jianchao Wang
---
block/blk-merge.c | 16