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: <F0921DE61714438C86A1AB46A4E7F22D@TAKEOW7NB1>
Date:	Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:43:38 +0800
From:	"Takeo Tung" <kernel@...eo.idv.tw>
To:	"Neil Brown" <neilb@...e.de>, "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>
Cc:	"Michal Marek" <mmarek@...e.cz>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"Takeo Tung" <kernel@...eo.idv.tw>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for struct bio and struct request will kernel panic

Hello,

ok. I rewrite the patch back to bool and re-add bio_rw_flagged fucntion. pls 
review it and any comment?

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/
>
> 
Download attachment "bio-blkdev-rev2.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (7745 bytes)