lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:57:13 +0000 From: James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com> To: "kys@...rosoft.com" <kys@...rosoft.com> CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>, "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>, "devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>, "michaelc@...wisc.edu" <michaelc@...wisc.edu>, "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>, "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, "ohering@...e.com" <ohering@...e.com>, "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT from the basic I/O timeout On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 16:44 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christoph Hellwig (hch@...radead.org) [mailto:hch@...radead.org] > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:11 AM > > To: KY Srinivasan > > Cc: Jens Axboe; James Bottomley; michaelc@...wisc.edu; Christoph Hellwig > > (hch@...radead.org); linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org; > > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; jasowang@...hat.com; linux- > > kernel@...r.kernel.org; ohering@...e.com; apw@...onical.com; > > devel@...uxdriverproject.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT > > from the basic I/O timeout > > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53:33PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > I still see this problem. There was talk of fixing it elsewhere. > > > > Well, what we have right not is entirely broken, given that the block layer > > doesn't initialize ->timeout on TYPE_FS requeuests. > > > > We either need to revert that initial commit or apply something like the > > attached patch as a quick fix. > I had sent this exact patch sometime back: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg75385.html Actually, no you didn't. The difference is in the derivation of the timeout. Christoph's patch is absolute in terms of SD_TIMEOUT; yours is relative to the queue timeout setting ... I thought there was a reason for preferring the relative version. James -- 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