[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185830683.24525.2.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:24:43 -0700
From: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Joe Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com>, gurudas pai <gurudas.pai@...cle.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, wen.gang.wang@...cle.com,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add check do_direct_IO() return val
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 13:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:47:19 +0800
> Joe Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > > I tested Andrew's patch and panic was gone but got few ENOTBLK.
> > > So I tried with Joe's patch , both panic and ENOTBLK are gone now.
> > > But in Joe's patch if (ret == -ENOTBLK && (rw & WRITE)), dio_cleanup(dio)
> > > was not getting called because of break. So I moved dio_cleanup just
> > > after if (ret).
> >
> > Guru, actually, break from the loop with ENOTBLK will call dio_cleanup
> > at leater, if call it too early, that means will put_page(), maybe cause
> > other panic.
> >
>
> fyi, I dropped the earlier patch and now we have nothing. Please let's get all
> this sorted out in time for 2.6.23. Which is still many weeks away so there is
> plenty of time to prepare something which was carefully reviewed and well-tested,
> thanks.
I am also taking a look at it right now. Unfortunately, I don't think
fix is that simple - since we need to return success, in case of a
partial write.
Thanks,
Badari
-
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