mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block pull request for- 4.11-rc1
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 20:02:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aed9b48a-677d-e3e6-569b-9ff5a3e11c5d@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <75b9d9d8-9395-c7af-b29d-f016e9921498@kernel.dk>

On 02/19/2017 07:59 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 02/19/2017 07:12 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 18:15 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2017 06:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>> On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> - Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct request, and
>>>>> refactoring of
>>>>>   carrying SCSI payloads in the block layer. This cleans up the
>>>>> code
>>>>>   nicely, and enables us to kill the SCSI specific parts of
>>>>> struct
>>>>>   request, shrinking it down nicely. From Christoph mainly, with
>>>>> help
>>>>>   from Hannes.
>>>>
>>>> Hello Jens, Christoph and Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone working on a fix for the regression introduced by the 
>>>> BLOCK_PC removal changes (general protection fault) that I had 
>>>> reported three weeks ago? See also
>>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg55494.html
>>>
>>> I don't think that's a regression in this series, it just triggers 
>>> more easily with this series. The BLOCK_PC removal fixes aren't 
>>> touching device life times at all.
>>>
>>> That said, we will look into this again, of course. Christoph, any
>>> idea?
>>
>> We could do with tracing the bdi removal failure issue fingered both by
>> the block xfstests and Omar.  It's something to do with this set of
>> commits
>>
>>> - Fixes for duplicate bdi registrations and bdi/queue life time
>>>   problems from Jan and Dan.
>>
>> But no-one has actually root caused it yet.
> 
> The above set from Jan and Dan fixed one set of issues around this, and
> the reproducer test case was happy as well. But we've recently found
> that there are still corner cases that aren't happy, Omar reported that
> separately on Friday. So there will be a followup set for that,
> hopefully intersecting with the issue that Bart reported.

Forgot to mention, that these cases exist in 4.0 and 4.6 as well, so
neither are a new problem with this series. The fixes from Jan and
Dan didn't close all of them.

-- 
Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-20  3:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-20  0:10 Jens Axboe
2017-02-20  1:09 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-20  1:15   ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-20  2:12     ` James Bottomley
2017-02-20  2:59       ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-20  3:02         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2017-02-20  7:35     ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-20 16:16       ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-20 16:32         ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-21  1:18           ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-24 17:39           ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-24 17:51             ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-24 19:43             ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-24 20:00               ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-24 20:22                 ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-24 21:15                   ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-25 18:17                   ` hch
2017-02-25 18:22                     ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-21 19:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-21 19:34   ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-21 23:02   ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-21 23:15     ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-21 23:23       ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-22 18:14         ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-22 18:26           ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-22 18:41             ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-22 18:45               ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-22 18:52                 ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-22 18:56                   ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-22 18:58                     ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-22 19:04                       ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-22 21:29                         ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-22 18:42             ` Linus Torvalds
2017-02-22 18:44               ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-22 21:50                 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2017-02-22 21:55                   ` Jens Axboe
2017-02-23  0:16                   ` Linus Torvalds

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aed9b48a-677d-e3e6-569b-9ff5a3e11c5d@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome