[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH -next] block: remove field 'bd_inode' from block_device
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 05:39:12PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote: > From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> > > block_devcie is allocated from bdev_alloc() by bdev_alloc_inode(), and > currently block_device contains a pointer that point to the address of > inode, while such inode is allocated together: > > bdev_alloc > inode = new_inode() > // inode is &bdev_inode->vfs_inode > bdev = I_BDEV(inode) > // bdev is &bdev_inode->bdev > bdev->inode = inode > > Add a new helper to get address of inode from bdev by add operation > instead of memory access, which is more efficiency. Also prepare to > add a new field 'bd_flags' in the first cacheline(64 bytes). > > Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > block/bdev.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++------------- > block/blk-zoned.c | 4 +-- > block/fops.c | 4 +-- > block/genhd.c | 8 +++--- > block/ioctl.c | 8 +++--- > block/partitions/core.c | 9 ++++--- > drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c | 2 +- > drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 2 +- > drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c | 12 ++++----- > drivers/s390/block/dasd_ioctl.c | 2 +- > drivers/scsi/scsicam.c | 2 +- > fs/bcachefs/util.h | 2 +- > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 6 ++--- > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 +-- > fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 2 +- > fs/buffer.c | 8 +++--- > fs/cramfs/inode.c | 2 +- > fs/erofs/data.c | 2 +- > fs/ext4/dir.c | 2 +- > fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.c | 2 +- > fs/ext4/super.c | 8 +++--- > fs/gfs2/glock.c | 2 +- > fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c | 2 +- > fs/jbd2/journal.c | 3 ++- > fs/jbd2/recovery.c | 2 +- > fs/nilfs2/segment.c | 2 +- > include/linux/blk_types.h | 10 ++++++-- > include/linux/blkdev.h | 4 +-- > include/linux/buffer_head.h | 4 +-- > 29 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-) You should do this as a patch series, add the helper function that does nothing, convert all the different portions of the kernel as different patches, and _then_ change the implementation of the block layer to handle the change in the structure. Otherwise this is going to be hard to get accepted. Also, one note: > @@ -85,6 +84,13 @@ struct block_device { > #define bdev_kobj(_bdev) \ > (&((_bdev)->bd_device.kobj)) > > +static inline struct inode *bdev_inode(struct block_device *bdev) > +{ > + void *inode = bdev + 1; That's crazy, if something changes, this will keep working yet the kernel will break and no one will know why. Please use container_of(), that's what it is there for, this exact type of thing. Or if not, are you just assuming that the memory location right after bdev is the inode? That's a tough assumption, how are you going to assure it really stays there? thanks, greg k-h
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |