Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

From: Kent Overstreet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:25:45 -0800

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:20:26PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 03:50 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> >> So we've three immediate options:
> >>
> >> 1) You base it on top of the block tree
> >> 2) I carry the loop updates
> >> 3) You hand Stephen a merge patch for the resulting merge of the two
> > 
> > Attached is a merge patch and the merged loop.c. I'm having problems
> > with the loop driver with both the block and my tree. I'll continue to
> > look at that, but everything should build cleanly with this.
> 
> Looking back, I obviously rushed the last patch out. This merge patch,
> and the resulting loop.c, fix my problem. My code is working with Jens'
> block tree now.
> 
> Jens,
> I ended up replacing a call to bio_iovec_idx() with __bvec_iter_bvec()
> since the former was removed. It's not very elegant, but it works. I'm
> open to suggestions on a cleaner fix, but it can wait until one or both
> of these trees is merged.

No, that's definitely wrong. Read Documentation/block/biovecs.txt - you
need to use either the new bio_iovec() or bio_iovec() iter. I can do the
conversion later today.