On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 07:15:52PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
quoted
quoted
bio_integrity_endio -> bio_integrity_verify_fn -> bio_integrity_process
access the integrity data, so I don't think this works as-is.
oh, I probably missed the integrity endio. could we let bio_integrity_verify_fn
free integrity info and and bio_endio free cgroup info?
something like this (will need the cgroup fixes from you still) should
do the trick, although it's completely untested:
diff --git a/block/bio-integrity.c b/block/bio-integrity.c
index b8a3a65f7364..b66eb92b5a00 100644
--- a/block/bio-integrity.c
+++ b/block/bio-integrity.c
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(bio_integrity_alloc);
* Description: Used to free the integrity portion of a bio. Usually
* called from bio_free().
*/
-void bio_integrity_free(struct bio *bio)
+static void bio_integrity_free(struct bio *bio)
{
struct bio_integrity_payload *bip = bio_integrity(bio);
struct bio_set *bs = bio->bi_pool;@@ -120,8 +120,8 @@ void bio_integrity_free(struct bio *bio)
}
bio->bi_integrity = NULL;
+ bio->bi_opf &= ~REQ_INTEGRITY;
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(bio_integrity_free);
/**
* bio_integrity_add_page - Attach integrity metadata
@@ -340,12 +340,6 @@ int bio_integrity_prep(struct bio *bio)
offset = 0;
}
- /* Install custom I/O completion handler if read verify is enabled */
- if (bio_data_dir(bio) == READ) {
- bip->bip_end_io = bio->bi_end_io;
- bio->bi_end_io = bio_integrity_endio;
- }
-
/* Auto-generate integrity metadata if this is a write */
if (bio_data_dir(bio) == WRITE)
bio_integrity_process(bio, bi->profile->generate_fn);@@ -370,14 +364,12 @@ static void bio_integrity_verify_fn(struct work_struct *work)
struct blk_integrity *bi = bdev_get_integrity(bio->bi_bdev);
bio->bi_status = bio_integrity_process(bio, bi->profile->verify_fn);
-
- /* Restore original bio completion handler */
- bio->bi_end_io = bip->bip_end_io;
+ bio_integrity_free(bio);
bio_endio(bio);
should we directly call bi_end_io here? Otherwise, looks reasonable to me.
Thanks,
Shaohua