On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:19:15AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+++ b/include/linux/bvec.h
@@ -117,11 +117,18 @@ static inline bool bvec_iter_advance(const struct bio_vec *bv,
return true;
}
+static inline void bvec_iter_skip_zero_bvec(struct bvec_iter *iter)
+{
+ iter->bi_bvec_done = 0;
+ iter->bi_idx++;
+}
+
#define for_each_bvec(bvl, bio_vec, iter, start) \
for (iter = (start); \
(iter).bi_size && \
((bvl = bvec_iter_bvec((bio_vec), (iter))), 1); \
- bvec_iter_advance((bio_vec), &(iter), (bvl).bv_len))
+ (bvl).bv_len ? bvec_iter_advance((bio_vec), &(iter), \
+ (bvl).bv_len) : bvec_iter_skip_zero_bvec(&(iter)))
What if you have two zero-length bvecs in a row? Won't this just skip
the first one?
It would seem better to me to put the bv_len test in bvec_iter_advance()
instead of making the macro more complicated.