Desk check of raid5.c patch from mtew@cds.duke.edu?

Desk check of raid5.c patch from mtew@cds.duke.edu?

[Quim K Holland]

I've been following the recent 2.4.1-pre series and am wondering why the following one-liner
(obviously correct) patch has not been applied.  Maybe the original request from Neil to Linus
did not get through?

<http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-raid&m=97936073620401&w=2>

--- drivers/md/raid5.c  2001/01/13 04:31:15     1.1
+++ drivers/md/raid5.c  2001/01/13 04:31:30
@@ -1071,7 +1071,7 @@
                bh->b_end_io(bh, 1);
        }
        while ((bh=return_fail)) {
-               return_ok = bh->b_reqnext;
+               return_fail = bh->b_reqnext;
                bh->b_reqnext = NULL;
                bh->b_end_io(bh, 0);
        }


------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/


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

Re: Desk check of raid5.c patch from mtew@cds.duke.edu?

[Ingo Molnar]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Quim K Holland wrote:

> I've been following the recent 2.4.1-pre series and am wondering why
> the following one-liner (obviously correct) patch has not been
> applied. [...]

> -               return_ok = bh->b_reqnext;
> +               return_fail = bh->b_reqnext;

oops - i do have it in my tree, somehow it escaped.

	Ingo

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