linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for struct bio and struct request will kernel panic

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: <20100708111536.6068ca58@notabene.brown>
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/