Re: block: fully initialize queue in blk_mq_init_allocated_queue

[Mike Snitzer]

On Fri, Mar 13 2015 at  5:30am -0400,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Commit c9e8c91f8a279b87eb0d94b037504ea9fc1bef7c
>  Author: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  Date:   Tue Mar 10 15:54:41 2015 -0400
> 
>  blk-mq: fix use of incorrect goto label in blk_mq_init_queue error path
> 
> for some reason has moved queue allocation 'q = blk_alloc_queue_node()'
> after 'percpu_ref_init(&q->mq_usage_counter...)', so we are doing percpu
> init on something that is not a request_queue.
> 
> Further commit 716452cd27b145d611e4399e7cc35df6c943686e
>  Author: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  Date:   Tue Mar 10 17:20:20 2015 -0400
> 
>  blk-mq: add blk_mq_init_allocated_queue and export
> 
> has introduced abother issue.
> In blk_mq_init_queue() we allocate new request_queue:
> ...

Thanks, but I already fixed these 2 patches and pushed them to
linux-dm.git's for-next branch last night (I also posted v3 of the
corresponding patches to LKML at that time).

Sorry to waste your time, I've learned my lesson:

Don't validate a tree works and then decide to hurridly rebase before
pushing to linux-next, to get a fix before a feature, without re-testing
the result (prior to rebase, patches 1 and 2 were inverted and I didn't
have the extra blk_mq_init_queue -- that snuck in with the rebase).

Hopefully linux-next was able to pick up my new 'for-next' and we don't
have an entire weekend of linux-next crashes due to my idiocy.
--
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/