linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: simplify I/O stat accounting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:03:56 +0200
From:	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: simplify I/O stat accounting

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Jerome Marchand wrote:
>>>>> This simplifies I/O stat accounting switching code and separates it
>>>>> completely from I/O scheduler switch code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Requests are accounted according to the state of their request queue
>>>>> at the time of the request allocation. There is no need anymore to
>>>>> flush the request queue when switching I/O accounting state.
>>>> This is cleaner, I like it. I'll apply it, but I'm changing this one:
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -792,9 +792,10 @@ static struct request *get_request(struct
>>>>> request_queue *q, int rw_flags,
>>>>>  	if (priv)
>>>>>  		rl->elvpriv++;
>>>>>
>>>>> +	iostat = blk_queue_io_stat(q) ? REQ_IO_STAT : 0;
>>>>>  	spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock);
>>>> to a regular if, I hate these ?: constructs. An if is much more
>>>> readable, imho.
>>> Grmbl, your patch is line wrapped. Please fix your mailer.
>> And it doesn't apply to current -git. Looks like a hand apply, but
>> please be a little more careful in the future.
> 
> OK, it doesn't even compile either:
> 
> +#define blk_rq_io_stat(rq)     ((rq)->flags & REQ_IO_STAT)
> 
> that wants to be ->cmd_flags.
> 
> Please resend when you have something that at least compiles. If you
> send untested stuff my way, at least tell me.
> 

Hi Jens,

I'm very sorry about this. I didn't send you a patch which does not
compiles on purpose. I was working on backporting that patch on an older
version of the kernel. It looks like I hand-edited that patch by mistake
before I sent it to you.

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