[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1hbamkgoe.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:45:37 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snizer@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Regression] Please revert a91a2785b20
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
Thomas,
Thomas> But the changelog does not give the courtesy of explaining these
Thomas> changes. Also there is no fcking reason why the kernel cannot
Thomas> deal with the missing integrity capabilities of a drive just by
Thomas> emitting a warning msg and dealing gracefully with the outcome.
My mistake. I was made aware of it earlier today and I'm working on a
patch. Surprised we didn't see any reports of this in -next. It's been
in there for a while.
Thomas> All my RAID setups have been working perfectly fine until now,
Thomas> so what's the rationale to break this?
People were complaining about excessive mempool usage with the block
integrity bits enabled (thanks to MD and DM allocating a bioset per
device to prevent deadlocks).
Making allocation conditional meant we had to deal with memory
allocation errors in the setup path. I tested various combinations of on
and off but apparently not all off. Sorry about that.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
--
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