[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121022153606.GA13399@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:36:06 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [ 12/37] block: fix request_queue->flags initialization
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:56:18AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Greg.
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 09:25:29AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > 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?
>
> I don't think it will break anything as it simply changes assignment
> to |= to avoid overwriting existing flags. That said, any patch can
> break anything, so if possible it would be better to drop for 3.0.y.
Ok, I'll revert this and push out a 3.0.48 to be safe.
thanks,
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