Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for struct bio and struct request will kernel panic

[Takeo Tung]

Dear Neil,

Ok. bcoz I don't sure you like define is 'bool' or 'unsigned long', if using 
'unsigned long', I no problem now. sorry for my poor english.

Thanks,
Takeo Tung

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Neil Brown" <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 9:15 AM
To: "Takeo Tung" <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxx>; "Michal Marek" <mmarek@xxxxxxx>; 
<linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for 
struct bio and struct request will kernel panic

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:43:38 +0800
> "Takeo Tung" <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > ok. I rewrite the patch back to bool and re-add bio_rw_flagged fucntion. 
> > pls
> > review it and any comment?
>
> I'm not sure why you did that.
> I meant to say that I liked the fact that you had changed from 'bool' to
> 'unsigned long' and that I thought using 'bool' was unnecessary.  Maybe I
> didn't say that very clearly.
>
> It doesn't matter to me particularly which approach is used, but please 
> don't
> re-introduce bio_rw_flagged because you think I want it - I don't.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
> > Thanks,
> > Takeo Tung
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "Neil Brown" <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:48 AM
> > To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Takeo Tung" <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Michal Marek" <mmarek@xxxxxxx>;
> > <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags 
> > for
> > struct bio and struct request will kernel panic
> >
> > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:17:32 +0200
> > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 07:05:39AM +0800, Takeo Tung wrote:
> > >> > Dear Christoph,
> > >> >
> > >> > I was check the patch again. I found the panic status haapen on Soft
> > >> > RAID
> > >> > 1. I review it. found some define using bool, so some like ( x &
> > >> > REQ_SYNC)
> > >> > only 0 or 1.
> > >> > so if bi_rw = rw | sync will bi_rw = rw | 0 or rw | 1. not rw | ( 1 
> > >> > <<
> > >> > __REQ_SYNC).
> > >> >
> > >> > So I write a patch is fix it. seems normal now. could you review the
> > >> > patch
> > >> > or any comment?
> > >>
> > >> The patch looks correct to me, although your mailer mangled the
> > >> whitespace badly.  If Neil wants to keep the flag as bool we could
> > >> also add a !! around the bit flag checks.
> > >
> > > I think it is best to make them "unsigned long" holding the actual but.
> > > They were only made 'bool' because that is was bio_rw_flagged() 
> > > returned.
> > > Converting to a bool then back to a bit-flag is unnecessary.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > NeilBrown
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" 
> > > in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > >
> > >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/