[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005210947440.4243@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bug fix patch lost: git problem or just incorrect merge?
On Fri, 21 May 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Either way, of course, we need the patch back ...
>
> I'll fix it up.
Hmm. Pushed that out as appended, since that is the correct resolve.
HOWEVER - the code still doesn't actually make any sense. It does
if (sk_sleep(sock->sk)) {
and that sk_sleep() today is an inline function that just does
return &sk->sk_wq->wait;
and testing the result of an address-of operation for NULL is almost
certainly totally non-sensical. Sure, it _might_ work (maybe 'wait' is the
first element in the 'sk_wq' data structure, and sk_wq is NULL), but that
kind of code is always total and utterl crap regardless.
So I pushed it out because I had done the resolve already, and it's no
worse than it was before, but it's still a steaming buggy pile of shit.
It being iscsi, I can't bring myself to care. But somebody who does,
should really look at it. The most likely resolution is to remove the test
entirely, since I don't think it's ever valid to have a socket that
doesn't have a sk_wq (there's a _lot_ of unconditional use of sk_sleep()).
Linus
--
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