linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] NVMe changes for 4.5-rc1

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56A251C2.101@fb.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:58:58 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] NVMe changes for 4.5-rc1

On 01/21/2016 08:58 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com> wrote:
>>
>> Note that pulling this in will conflict with master, since the code was
>> forked off pretty early, and we had a good chunk of nvme fixes later in
>> the 4.4 cycle.
>
> Not just conflict, but conflict in bad ways. I don't think I'll be
> able to fix it up sanely.
>
> In particular, commit b5875222de2f ("NVMe: IO ending fixes on surprise
> removal") by Keith Busch added this to nvme_dev_remove():
>
>      if (nvme_io_incapable(dev)) {
>          /*
>           * If the device is not capable of IO (surprise hot-removal,
>           * for example), we need to quiesce prior to deleting the
>           * namespaces. This will end outstanding requests and prevent
>           * attempts to sync dirty data.
>           */
>          nvme_dev_shutdown(dev);
>      }
>
> and in your branch we now have:
>
>   - nvme_dev_shutdown() is now nvme_dev_disable(dev, false). Fine.
>
>   - nvme_dev_remove() got renamed to nvme_remove_namespaces(), but also
> lost the "dev" argument (it takes "struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl" now).

&dev->ctrl

> I think I will end up doing the merge by just dropping that part of
> the surprise removal commit, and letting you and Keith work out what
> the real solution is..

That's fine, thanks for merging!

-- 
Jens Axboe