[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180530111140.40c791bd@mschwideX1>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 11:11:40 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] two more s390 bug fixes for 4.17
On Wed, 30 May 2018 00:41:30 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> > - req->completion_data = cqr;
> > + *((struct dasd_ccw_req **) blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(req)) = cqr;
> > +
>
> Please don't play such tricks. In general your driver structure
> should have struct request embedded. If for some reason
> struct dasd_ccw_req has a different life time please create a new
> structure instead of these hacks.
Why do you consider this to be a 'trick'? The blk_mq_rq_to_pdu is
meant to be used to access a block of data that is is associated
with a request, no? With the change we store a single value, the
pointer to a struct dasd_ccw_req. The struct request comes first,
later do_dasd_request creates the struct dasd_ccw_req with the
CCW chain for the request. And for the blk timeout handler we need
a way to find the dasd_ccw_req again.
> In either way this really doesn't look like a post-rc7 change.
You think so? It fixes a crash for s390 with a minimal number of
changed lines:
drivers/s390/block/dasd.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists