[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:48:51 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists