On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:38:15 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:03 -0800, Pete Zaitcev <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors);
> > > - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
> > > + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
> > > + BUG();
> > My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only
> > takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it
> > calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error
> > and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed?
> I'm using __blk_end_request() here and I think it's sufficient, because:
> o end_that_request_last() must be called with the queue lock held
> o ub_end_rq() calls end_that_request_last() without taking
> the queue lock in itself.
> So the queue lock must have been taken outside ub_end_rq().
> But, if ub is calling end_that_request_last() without the queue lock,
> it is a bug in the original code and we should use blk_end_request()
> to fix that.
So, I have to rewrite ub to split the paths after all, right?
Let's do this then: I'll wait until your patch gets to Linus and
then update it with the split. The reason is, I need the whole
enchilada applied and I don't want to bother tracking iterations
and all the little segments (of which you already have 30).
Until then, ub will have a race by using your original small patch.
Best wishes,
-- Pete
--
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]
