On 2/18/25 9:12 AM, John Garry wrote:

On 18/02/2025 11:40, Andreas Hindborg wrote:

quoted

But I am genuinely curious if there is a reason for not setting
`bi_vcnt` during a clone.

I think that it came from commit 59d276fe0 (with the addition of 
bio_clone_fast()), where we assume that the cloned bio is not having the 
bio_vec touched and so does not need to know bi_vcnt (or bi_max_vecs). 
And it is inefficient to needlessly set bi_vcnt then.

Hmm ... I prefer paying the very small performance hit caused by copying
bi_vcnt rather than having to deal with the inconsistency caused by not
copying that data structure member.

Thanks,

Bart.