Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 May 2001 15:40:34 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |