Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)

[Pete Zaitcev]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:38:15 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:03 -0800, Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > -	end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors);
> > > -	end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
> > > +	if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
> > > +		BUG();

> > My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only
> > takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it
> > calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error
> > and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed?

> I'm using __blk_end_request() here and I think it's sufficient, because:
>   o end_that_request_last() must be called with the queue lock held
>   o ub_end_rq() calls end_that_request_last() without taking
>     the queue lock in itself.
>     So the queue lock must have been taken outside ub_end_rq().

> But, if ub is calling end_that_request_last() without the queue lock,
> it is a bug in the original code and we should use blk_end_request()
> to fix that.

So, I have to rewrite ub to split the paths after all, right?
Let's do this then: I'll wait until your patch gets to Linus and
then update it with the split. The reason is, I need the whole
enchilada applied and I don't want to bother tracking iterations
and all the little segments (of which you already have 30).
Until then, ub will have a race by using your original small patch.

Best wishes,
-- Pete
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/