lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] 4GB I/O, cut three
On Wed, May 30 2001, Mark Hemment wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30 2001, Mark Hemment wrote:
> > > This can lead to attempt_merge() releasing the embedded request
> > > structure (which, as an extract copy, has the ->q set, so to
> > > blkdev_release_request() it looks like a request which originated from
> > > the block layer). This isn't too healthy.
> > >
> > > The fix here is to add a check in __scsi_merge_requests_fn() to check
> > > for ->special being non-NULL.
> >
> > How about just adding
> >
> > if (req->cmd != next->cmd
> > || req->rq_dev != next->rq_dev
> > || req->nr_sectors + next->nr_sectors > q->max_sectors
> > || next->sem || req->special)
> > return;
> >
> > ie check for special too, that would make sense to me. Either way would
> > work, but I'd rather make this explicit in the block layer that 'not
> > normal' requests are left alone. That includes stuff with the sem set,
> > or special.
>
>
> Yes, that is an equivalent fix.
>
> In the original patch I wanted to keep the change local (ie. in the SCSI
> layer). Pushing the check up the generic block layer makes sense.

Ok, so we agree.

> Are you going to push this change to Linus, or should I?
> I'm assuming the other scsi-layer changes in Alan's tree will eventually
> be pushed.

I'll push it, I'll do the end_that_request_first thing too.

--
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:54    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site