From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932073Ab0GHBPt (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:15:49 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:58560 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757396Ab0GHBPs (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2010 21:15:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:15:36 +1000 From: Neil Brown To: "Takeo Tung" Cc: "Christoph Hellwig" , "Michal Marek" , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for struct bio and struct request will kernel panic Message-ID: <20100708111536.6068ca58@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: References: <10E8B8D94205471F942B06D2A007832D@TAKEOW7NB1> <4C129778.7040409@suse.cz> <20100612094937.GA12455@lst.de> <1AEF19B8648844C983F583EEBE9C46F4@TAKEOW7NB1> <20100707231732.GA30007@lst.de> <20100708094851.6dc6199d@notabene.brown> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:43:38 +0800 "Takeo Tung" 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" > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:48 AM > To: "Christoph Hellwig" > Cc: "Takeo Tung" ; "Michal Marek" ; > ; ; > > 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 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@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > >