Re: [Regression] Please revert a91a2785b20

[Martin K. Petersen]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Thomas,

Thomas> But the changelog does not give the courtesy of explaining these
Thomas> changes. Also there is no fcking reason why the kernel cannot
Thomas> deal with the missing integrity capabilities of a drive just by
Thomas> emitting a warning msg and dealing gracefully with the outcome.

My mistake. I was made aware of it earlier today and I'm working on a
patch. Surprised we didn't see any reports of this in -next. It's been
in there for a while.


Thomas> All my RAID setups have been working perfectly fine until now,
Thomas> so what's the rationale to break this?

People were complaining about excessive mempool usage with the block
integrity bits enabled (thanks to MD and DM allocating a bioset per
device to prevent deadlocks).

Making allocation conditional meant we had to deal with memory
allocation errors in the setup path. I tested various combinations of on
and off but apparently not all off. Sorry about that.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering
--
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/