On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:54:07AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:28:07AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:06:37AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:06:02PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > The "force" parameter in __blk_queue_bounce was being ignored, which > > > > means that > > > > stable page snapshots are not always happening (on ext3). This of > > > > course > > > > leads to DIF disks reporting checksum errors, so fix this regression. > > > > > > > > The regression was introduced in commit 6bc454d1 (bounce: Refactor > > > > __blk_queue_bounce to not use bi_io_vec) > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com> > > > > > > I have no means of testing it but it looks right and thanks for checking > > > DIF disks. > > > > > > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> > > > > > > > That said the two checks are now redundant. They could just be deleted > > and depend entirely on the following check within the loop > > > > if (page_to_pfn(page) <= queue_bounce_pfn(q) && !force) > > continue; > > > > with an update to the comment explaining that the check is for pages > > below the bounce pfn or for bios that require stable writes > > I'm under the impression that the point of the first looping-check is to avoid > the bio_clone_bioset() if we're not going to bounce anything. But I could be > wrong.
I doubt it, avoiding the clone makes sense and I was wrong about the check being redundant anyway. Trying to do the clone within the loop when the first bio that needs bouncing is encountered turns into a mess. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
