On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 9:53 AM Ming Lei ming.lei@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:34:42PM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
Factor a helper function ublk_copy_user_bvec() out of ublk_copy_user_pages(). It will be used for copying integrity data too.
Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos csander@purestorage.com
drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c index d3652ceba96d..0499add560b5 100644 --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c @@ -987,10 +987,39 @@ static const struct block_device_operations ub_fops = { .open = ublk_open, .free_disk = ublk_free_disk, .report_zones = ublk_report_zones, };
+static bool ublk_copy_user_bvec(struct bio_vec bv, unsigned *offset,
bv could be better to define as `const struct bio_vec *` for avoiding copy, otherwise this patch looks fine.
I was thinking it probably didn't matter much as the compiler was likely to inline the function call. But sure, I can pass it by pointer.
Thanks, Caleb