Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] block,scsi: fixup blk_get_request dead queue scenarios

[Jens Axboe]

On 08/26/2014 03:19 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/26/2014 11:24 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> v2->v3: rebase to 3.16-rc2, consider return values from the
>>>         blk_mq_alloc_request leg of the blk_get_request callchain
>>>         (noted by Jeff), noted in the second patch changelog.
>>>
>>> 	blk_mq_queue_enter may return 0 or errno, which
>>>         blk_mq_alloc_request can propogate out via ERR_PTR.
>>> 	__blk_mq_alloc_request doesn't include any blk_queue_dying
>>> 	checks, so I'm assuming that its failures can be attributed
>>>         to -EWOULDBLOCK under !GFP_WAIT conditions.
>>>
>>> v1->v2: incorporate Jeff's feedback in bsg_map_hdr() and Reviewed-by
>>>         tags.
>>>
>>> Joe Lawrence (2):
>>>   block,scsi: verify return pointer from blk_get_request
>>>   block,scsi: fixup blk_get_request dead queue scenarios
>>
>> Jens,
>>
>> Did this patch set fall through the cracks again?
> 
> Falling through the cracks implies that I meant to apply it and did not,
> which was not the case. But I think we're at the point now where I'm
> finally comfortable with applying it. So, Joe, could you ensure that it
> applies to 3.17-rc2, then I will roll it in to the updates for 3.18.

Actually, just audited a few of them, and conversions like this:

-	if (!rq)
+	if (IS_ERR(rq))

will break spectacularly if rq == NULL is returned. Should all these be
IS_ERR_OR_NULL?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/