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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:15:36 +1000 From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> To: "Takeo Tung" <kernel@...eo.idv.tw> Cc: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>, "Michal Marek" <mmarek@...e.cz>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> 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 08:43:38 +0800 "Takeo Tung" <kernel@...eo.idv.tw> 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" <neilb@...e.de> > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:48 AM > To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de> > Cc: "Takeo Tung" <kernel@...eo.idv.tw>; "Michal Marek" <mmarek@...e.cz>; > <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>; > <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> > 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 <hch@....de> 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@...r.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists