Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for struct bio and struct request will kernel panic

From: Takeo Tung
Date: Wed Jul 07 2010 - 21:42:16 EST


Dear Neil,

Ok. bcoz I don't sure you like define is 'bool' or 'unsigned long', if using 'unsigned long', I no problem now. sorry for my poor english.

Thanks,
Takeo Tung

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Neil Brown" <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 9:15 AM
To: "Takeo Tung" <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxx>; "Michal Marek" <mmarek@xxxxxxx>; <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for struct bio and struct request will kernel panic

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:43:38 +0800
"Takeo Tung" <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

ok. I rewrite the patch back to bool and re-add bio_rw_flagged fucntion. pls
review it and any comment?

I'm not sure why you did that.
I meant to say that I liked the fact that you had changed from 'bool' to
'unsigned long' and that I thought using 'bool' was unnecessary. Maybe I
didn't say that very clearly.

It doesn't matter to me particularly which approach is used, but please don't
re-introduce bio_rw_flagged because you think I want it - I don't.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


Thanks,
Takeo Tung

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Neil Brown" <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:48 AM
To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxx>
Cc: "Takeo Tung" <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Michal Marek" <mmarek@xxxxxxx>;
<linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for
struct bio and struct request will kernel panic

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:17:32 +0200
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 07:05:39AM +0800, Takeo Tung wrote:
>> > Dear Christoph,
>> >
>> > I was check the patch again. I found the panic status haapen on Soft
>> > RAID
>> > 1. I review it. found some define using bool, so some like ( x &
>> > REQ_SYNC)
>> > only 0 or 1.
>> > so if bi_rw = rw | sync will bi_rw = rw | 0 or rw | 1. not rw | ( 1 >> > <<
>> > __REQ_SYNC).
>> >
>> > So I write a patch is fix it. seems normal now. could you review the
>> > patch
>> > or any comment?
>>
>> The patch looks correct to me, although your mailer mangled the
>> whitespace badly. If Neil wants to keep the flag as bool we could
>> also add a !! around the bit flag checks.
>
> I think it is best to make them "unsigned long" holding the actual but.
> They were only made 'bool' because that is was bio_rw_flagged() > returned.
> Converting to a bool then back to a bit-flag is unnecessary.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
> --
> 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/
>
>
--
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/


--
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/