Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:52312 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730072AbeKVCpb (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:45:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:10:25 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ming Lei Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Theodore Ts'o , Omar Sandoval , Sagi Grimberg , Dave Chinner , Kent Overstreet , Mike Snitzer , dm-devel@redhat.com, Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J . Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Gao Xiang , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li , linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Boaz Harrosh , Bob Peterson , cluster-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 03/19] block: introduce bio_for_each_bvec() Message-ID: <20181121161025.GB4977@lst.de> References: <20181121032327.8434-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181121032327.8434-4-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181121133244.GB1640@lst.de> <20181121153135.GB19111@ming.t460p> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181121153135.GB19111@ming.t460p> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > But while looking over this I wonder why we even need the max_seg_len > > here. The only thing __bvec_iter_advance does it to move bi_bvec_done > > and bi_idx forward, with corresponding decrements of bi_size. As far > > as I can tell the only thing that max_seg_len does is that we need > > to more iterations of the while loop to archive the same thing. > > > > And actual bvec used by the caller will be obtained using > > bvec_iter_bvec or segment_iter_bvec depending on if they want multi-page > > or single-page variants. > > Right, we let __bvec_iter_advance() serve for both multi-page and single-page > case, then we have to tell it via one way or another, now we use the constant > of 'max_seg_len'. > > Or you suggest to implement two versions of __bvec_iter_advance()? No - I think we can always use the code without any segment in bvec_iter_advance. Because bvec_iter_advance only operates on the iteractor, the generation of an actual single-page or multi-page bvec is left to the caller using the bvec_iter_bvec or segment_iter_bvec helpers. The only difference is how many bytes you can move the iterator forward in a single loop iteration - so if you pass in PAGE_SIZE as the max_seg_len you just will have to loop more often for a large enough bytes, but not actually do anything different.