[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFR8ueca-MQWRipE+3OQSpqmJ40HKJEY7jWt6PQ+zTCQ9Bh=5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:57:26 -0700
From: Muthu Kumar <muthu.lkml@...il.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jej B <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED] block: In blk_execute_rq_nowait, init rq->end_io
before checking for dead queue.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
> On 06/09/12 00:10, Muthu Kumar wrote:
>
>> Since the queue->lock case is taken care of in the following patch:
>>
>> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg59845.html [PATCH 1/4]
>> block: Fix race on request_queue.end_io invocations)
>>
>> Updated the patch with just the end_io assignment before dead queue check.
>>
>>
>
>
> This patch does not apply since it's line-wrapped and a part is missing
> in the second hunk. However, if I had overlooked your original patch
> then I want to apologize.
>
Please use the attached file since gmail messes with the line wraps.
> If you can resend your original patch including the locking changes then
> I'll test it further.
>
Locking change is the one you posted already (the link above). Anyway,
I have the attached patch *including* the locking change. Original
mail has attachment without locking change. Please use whatever you
need.
Thanks for testing.
Regards,
Muthu
> Bart.
View attachment "blk-exec-patch-to-bart.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (682 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists