On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:38:26PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To support discontiguous buffers in the buffer cache, we need to
> separate the cache index variables from the I/O map. While this is
> currently a 1:1 mapping, discontiguous buffer support will break
> this relationship.
> However, for caching purposes, we can still treat them the same as a
> contiguous buffer - the block number of the first block and the
> length of the buffer - as that is still a unique representation.
> Also, the only way we will ever access the discontiguous regions of
> buffers is via bulding the complete buffer in the first place, so
> using the initial block number and entire buffer length is a sane
> way to index the buffers.
> Add a block mapping vector construct to the xfs_buf and use it in
> the places where we are doing IO instead of the current
> b_bn/b_length variables.
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> index a4beb42..90c5b6a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> @@ -199,9 +199,11 @@ xfs_buf_alloc(
> * most cases but may be reset (e.g. XFS recovery).
> bp->b_length = numblks;
> + bp->b_map.bm_len = numblks;
> bp->b_io_length = numblks;
> bp->b_flags = flags;
> bp->b_bn = blkno;
> + bp->b_map.bm_bn = blkno;
nipick: any reason not to initialize the two fields of b_map next
to each other?
> - bp->b_io_length = bp->b_length;
oh, I just mentioned that we can remove this in reply to Jan's patch,
so this is already taken care of, too.
> #ifdef XFS_BUF_LOCK_TRACKING
> int b_last_holder;
> @@ -233,8 +242,8 @@ void xfs_buf_stale(struct xfs_buf *bp);
> #define XFS_BUF_UNWRITE(bp) ((bp)->b_flags &= ~XBF_WRITE)
> #define XFS_BUF_ISWRITE(bp) ((bp)->b_flags & XBF_WRITE)
> -#define XFS_BUF_ADDR(bp) ((bp)->b_bn)
> -#define XFS_BUF_SET_ADDR(bp, bno) ((bp)->b_bn = (xfs_daddr_t)(bno))
> +#define XFS_BUF_ADDR(bp) ((bp)->b_map.bm_bn)
> +#define XFS_BUF_SET_ADDR(bp, bno) ((bp)->b_map.bm_bn = (xfs_daddr_t)(bno))
It's not really obvious why XFS_BUF_SET_ADDR should not set b_bn from
it's defintion. Looking at the callers it seems because it's only used
for uncached buffers, which never use b_bn, but it's still confusing.
I'm fine with keeping it for now bith a big comment to get this series
in, but XFS_BUF_SET_ADDR and b_io_length probably should go away ASAP in
favor or a variant of xfs_buf_iorequest that takes a bn/len pair .