On Mon, Dec 10 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 10 December 2007 02:47, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Ehm, this patch is so broken it's not even funny - did you even
> > compile? You would have noticed the warning on request_queue_t,
> > surely. The big problem is the last hunk here though, how would that
> > work on stacked devices? Clue: ->bi_bdev is not const, it can change
> > after a call to ->make_request_fn().
>
> Such paranoia. Yes, the patch was compiled. Yes, the warning was
> slipped through. No, it is not substantive, and in fact was removed
> from another branch of our tree already.
>
> Ignoring the rhetoric, apparently you missed the line:
>
> + if (q && q->metric && !bio->bi_queue) {
>
> The prevents any reference ti bi_bdev after the intial call to
> generic_make_request. Thanks to Evgeniy for pointing out the need for
> this measure on the last go round.
Which saves the initial target, for ease of accounting at end io time -
that's not the point. What happens when ->make_request_fn() changes
bio->bi_bdev and returns 1, causing another iteration of the
__generic_make_request() loop? 'q' is no longer the valid target,
bdev_get_queue(bio->bi_bdev) is.
> "So broken" is a gross exaggeration. Substantive comments welcome.
Or you could try and make an effort to understand the comment instead of
just glancing over it.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
