On Fri, Aug 17 2012 at 11:47pm -0400,
Martin K. Petersen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

"Mike" == Mike Snitzer [off-list ref] 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.