| Message ID | 20171020144451.GA16793@infradead.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 07:44:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The Subject prefix for this should be "block:". > > > @@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ int submit_bio_wait(struct bio *bio) > > { > > struct submit_bio_ret ret; > > > > - init_completion(&ret.event); > > + init_completion_with_map(&ret.event, &bio->bi_disk->lockdep_map); > > FYI, I have an outstanding patch to simplify this a lot, which > switches this to DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK. I can delay this or let > you pick it up with your series, but we'll need a variant of > DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK with the lockdep annotations. Hello, I'm sorry for late. I think your patch makes block code simpler and better. I like it. But, I just wonder if it's related to my series. Is it proper to add your patch into my series? Thanks, Byungchul > Patch below for reference: > > --- > >From d65b89843c9f82c0744643515ba51dd10e66e67b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 18:31:02 +0200 > Subject: block: use DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK in submit_bio_wait > > Simplify the code by getting rid of the submit_bio_ret structure. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > --- > block/bio.c | 19 +++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c > index 8338304ea256..4e18e959fc0a 100644 > --- a/block/bio.c > +++ b/block/bio.c > @@ -917,17 +917,9 @@ int bio_iov_iter_get_pages(struct bio *bio, struct iov_iter *iter) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bio_iov_iter_get_pages); > > -struct submit_bio_ret { > - struct completion event; > - int error; > -}; > - > static void submit_bio_wait_endio(struct bio *bio) > { > - struct submit_bio_ret *ret = bio->bi_private; > - > - ret->error = blk_status_to_errno(bio->bi_status); > - complete(&ret->event); > + complete(bio->bi_private); > } > > /** > @@ -943,16 +935,15 @@ static void submit_bio_wait_endio(struct bio *bio) > */ > int submit_bio_wait(struct bio *bio) > { > - struct submit_bio_ret ret; > + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(done); > > - init_completion(&ret.event); > - bio->bi_private = &ret; > + bio->bi_private = &done; > bio->bi_end_io = submit_bio_wait_endio; > bio->bi_opf |= REQ_SYNC; > submit_bio(bio); > - wait_for_completion_io(&ret.event); > + wait_for_completion_io(&done); > > - return ret.error; > + return blk_status_to_errno(bio->bi_status); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(submit_bio_wait); > > -- > 2.14.2
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:53:35AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 07:44:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > The Subject prefix for this should be "block:". > > > > > @@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ int submit_bio_wait(struct bio *bio) > > > { > > > struct submit_bio_ret ret; > > > > > > - init_completion(&ret.event); > > > + init_completion_with_map(&ret.event, &bio->bi_disk->lockdep_map); > > > > FYI, I have an outstanding patch to simplify this a lot, which > > switches this to DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK. I can delay this or let > > you pick it up with your series, but we'll need a variant of > > DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK with the lockdep annotations. > > Hello, > > I'm sorry for late. > > I think your patch makes block code simpler and better. I like it. > > But, I just wonder if it's related to my series. Because it shows that we also need a version of DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK the gets passed an explicit lockdep map. And because if it was merged through a different tree it would create a conflict. > Is it proper to add > your patch into my series? Sure.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:36:30PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:53:35AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 07:44:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > The Subject prefix for this should be "block:". > > > > > > > @@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ int submit_bio_wait(struct bio *bio) > > > > { > > > > struct submit_bio_ret ret; > > > > > > > > - init_completion(&ret.event); > > > > + init_completion_with_map(&ret.event, &bio->bi_disk->lockdep_map); > > > > > > FYI, I have an outstanding patch to simplify this a lot, which > > > switches this to DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK. I can delay this or let > > > you pick it up with your series, but we'll need a variant of > > > DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK with the lockdep annotations. > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm sorry for late. > > > > I think your patch makes block code simpler and better. I like it. > > > > But, I just wonder if it's related to my series. > > Because it shows that we also need a version of DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK > the gets passed an explicit lockdep map. And because if it was merged > through a different tree it would create a conflict. > > > Is it proper to add > > your patch into my series? > > Sure. I will add yours at the next spin. Thank you. BTW, to all... Any additional opinions about these patches?
diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c index 8338304ea256..4e18e959fc0a 100644 --- a/block/bio.c +++ b/block/bio.c @@ -917,17 +917,9 @@ int bio_iov_iter_get_pages(struct bio *bio, struct iov_iter *iter) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bio_iov_iter_get_pages); -struct submit_bio_ret { - struct completion event; - int error; -}; - static void submit_bio_wait_endio(struct bio *bio) { - struct submit_bio_ret *ret = bio->bi_private; - - ret->error = blk_status_to_errno(bio->bi_status); - complete(&ret->event); + complete(bio->bi_private); } /** @@ -943,16 +935,15 @@ static void submit_bio_wait_endio(struct bio *bio) */ int submit_bio_wait(struct bio *bio) { - struct submit_bio_ret ret; + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(done); - init_completion(&ret.event); - bio->bi_private = &ret; + bio->bi_private = &done; bio->bi_end_io = submit_bio_wait_endio; bio->bi_opf |= REQ_SYNC; submit_bio(bio); - wait_for_completion_io(&ret.event); + wait_for_completion_io(&done); - return ret.error; + return blk_status_to_errno(bio->bi_status); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(submit_bio_wait);