* [PATCH 1/1] io_uring/kbuf: remove last buf_index manipulation
@ 2025-04-01 11:15 Pavel Begunkov
2025-04-01 13:13 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Begunkov @ 2025-04-01 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: io-uring; +Cc: asml.silence
It doesn't cause any problem, but there is one more place missed where
we set req->buf_index back to bgid. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
---
io_uring/kbuf.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/kbuf.h b/io_uring/kbuf.h
index c576a15fbfd4..0798a732e6cb 100644
--- a/io_uring/kbuf.h
+++ b/io_uring/kbuf.h
@@ -95,7 +95,6 @@ static inline bool io_kbuf_recycle_ring(struct io_kiocb *req)
* to monopolize the buffer.
*/
if (req->buf_list) {
- req->buf_index = req->buf_list->bgid;
req->flags &= ~(REQ_F_BUFFER_RING|REQ_F_BUFFERS_COMMIT);
return true;
}
--
2.48.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring/kbuf: remove last buf_index manipulation
2025-04-01 11:15 [PATCH 1/1] io_uring/kbuf: remove last buf_index manipulation Pavel Begunkov
@ 2025-04-01 13:13 ` Jens Axboe
2025-04-01 14:15 ` Pavel Begunkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2025-04-01 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Begunkov, io-uring
On 4/1/25 5:15 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> It doesn't cause any problem, but there is one more place missed where
> we set req->buf_index back to bgid. Remove it.
Want me to just fold that in with the previous one, it's top of
tree anyway and part of the 6.16 series that I haven't even
pushed out yet?
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring/kbuf: remove last buf_index manipulation
2025-04-01 13:13 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2025-04-01 14:15 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-04-01 14:15 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Begunkov @ 2025-04-01 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, io-uring
On 4/1/25 14:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/1/25 5:15 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> It doesn't cause any problem, but there is one more place missed where
>> we set req->buf_index back to bgid. Remove it.
>
> Want me to just fold that in with the previous one, it's top of
> tree anyway and part of the 6.16 series that I haven't even
> pushed out yet?
Would be great!
--
Pavel Begunkov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] io_uring/kbuf: remove last buf_index manipulation
2025-04-01 14:15 ` Pavel Begunkov
@ 2025-04-01 14:15 ` Jens Axboe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jens Axboe @ 2025-04-01 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Begunkov, io-uring
On 4/1/25 8:15 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 4/1/25 14:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/1/25 5:15 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> It doesn't cause any problem, but there is one more place missed where
>>> we set req->buf_index back to bgid. Remove it.
>>
>> Want me to just fold that in with the previous one, it's top of
>> tree anyway and part of the 6.16 series that I haven't even
>> pushed out yet?
>
> Would be great!
Done!
--
Jens Axboe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-04-01 14:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-04-01 11:15 [PATCH 1/1] io_uring/kbuf: remove last buf_index manipulation Pavel Begunkov
2025-04-01 13:13 ` Jens Axboe
2025-04-01 14:15 ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-04-01 14:15 ` Jens Axboe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox