Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] block: Add bio_reset()

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 07:23:05PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:17:15PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:

quoted

I still think they should be symmetrical, but if that's true bi_ioc and
bi_css need to be moved, and also bio_disassociate_task() should be
getting called from bio_free(), not bio_put().

Were you the one that added that call? I know you've been working on
that area of the code recently. Sticking it in bio_put() instead of
bio_free() seems odd to be, and they're completely equivalent now that
bio_free() is only called from bio_put() (save one instance I should
probably fix).

Maybe I botched symmetry but anyways I *suspect* it probably would be
better to keep css association across bio_reset() give the current
usages of both mechanisms.  css association indicates the ownership of
the bio which isn't likely to change while recycling the bio.

Thought about it more and while you're right that css association isn't
likely to change, it'd just be a needless difference. bio_reset() should
be as close to a bio_free()/bio_alloc() as possible, IMO.

Fixed my patches to do it right, though.