[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121021162529.GA25856@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:25:29 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [ 12/37] block: fix request_queue->flags initialization
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:16:04AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:16:35PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> >
> > commit 60ea8226cbd5c8301f9a39edc574ddabcb8150e0 upstream.
> >
> > A queue newly allocated with blk_alloc_queue_node() has only
> > QUEUE_FLAG_BYPASS set. For request-based drivers,
> > blk_init_allocated_queue() is called and q->queue_flags is overwritten
> > with QUEUE_FLAG_DEFAULT which doesn't include BYPASS even though the
> > initial bypass is still in effect.
> >
> > In blk_init_allocated_queue(), or QUEUE_FLAG_DEFAULT to q->queue_flags
> > instead of overwriting.
> [...]
>
> This is not needed, as there is no QUEUE_FLAG_BYPASS in 3.0.y.
Odd, it doesn't break the build. And for some reason I just missed
this, does it hurt to have it applied?
greg k-h
--
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