[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49y6ckc302.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:45:33 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...nel.dk>, stable@...nel.org,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
Bryan Mesich <bryan.mesich@...u.edu>,
scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2 block#for-linus] bio, fs: update READA and SWRITE to match the corresponding BIO_RW_* bits
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> Commit a82afdf (block: use the same failfast bits for bio and request)
> moved BIO_RW_* bits around such that they match up with REQ_* bits.
> Unfortunately, fs.h hard coded READ, WRITE, READA and SWRITE as 0, 1,
> 2 and 3, and expected them to match with BIO_RW_* bits. READ/WRITE
> didn't change but BIO_RW_AHEAD was moved to bit 4 instead of bit 1,
> breaking READA and SWRITE.
>
> This patch updates READA and SWRITE such that they match the BIO_RW_*
> bits again. A follow up patch will update the definitions to directly
> use BIO_RW_* bits so that this kind of breakage won't happen again.
>
> Stable: The offending commit a82afdf was released with v2.6.32, so
> this patch should be applied to all kernels since then but it must
> _NOT_ be applied to kernels earlier than that.
Would someone be so kind as to remind me how this problem manifests
itself? I know I read this recently, but my memory and googling skills
are both failing me. :(
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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