linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: let blk_end_request

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]

Message-ID: <20090511091615.GQ4694@kernel.dk>
Date:	Mon, 11 May 2009 11:16:15 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	tj@...nel.org, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
	bharrosh@...asas.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: let blk_end_request_all handle bidi requests

On Mon, May 11 2009, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 11:06:30 +0200
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 11 2009, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > blk_end_request_all() and __blk_end_request_all() should finish all
> > > bytes including bidi, by definition. That's what all bidi users need ,
> > > bidi requests must be complete as a whole (partial completion is
> > > impossible).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/blkdev.h |   12 ++++++++++--
> > >  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > > index 8919683..3b5c564 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > > @@ -911,8 +911,12 @@ static inline bool blk_end_request(struct request *rq, int error,
> > >  static inline void blk_end_request_all(struct request *rq, int error)
> > >  {
> > >  	bool pending;
> > > +	unsigned int bidi_bytes = 0;
> > >  
> > > -	pending = blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq));
> > > +	if (unlikely(blk_bidi_rq(rq)))
> > > +		bidi_bytes = blk_rq_bytes(rq->next_rq);
> > > +
> > > +	pending = blk_end_bidi_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq), bidi_bytes);
> > >  	BUG_ON(pending);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > @@ -963,8 +967,12 @@ static inline bool __blk_end_request(struct request *rq, int error,
> > >  static inline void __blk_end_request_all(struct request *rq, int error)
> > >  {
> > >  	bool pending;
> > > +	unsigned int bidi_bytes = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	if (unlikely(blk_bidi_rq(rq)))
> > > +		bidi_bytes = blk_rq_bytes(rq->next_rq);
> > >  
> > > -	pending = __blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq));
> > > +	pending = __blk_end_bidi_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq), bidi_bytes);
> > >  	BUG_ON(pending);
> > >  }
> > 
> > Looks ok, perhaps we can next get rid of the bidi naming? It's all
> > pretty much folded into one anyway, using __blk_end_bidi_request() from
> > generic end-request handling looks confusing.
> 
> Yeah, agreed; the bidi name is confusing. I'll send another patch to
> clean up it on the top of this patchset soon.

Thanks!

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/