Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:22:48 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [patch 7/7] uml ubd: handle readonly status |
| |
On Mon, Apr 25 2005, Blaisorblade wrote: > On Monday 25 April 2005 12:16, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 24 2005, blaisorblade@yahoo.it wrote: > > > @@ -1099,6 +1104,7 @@ static int prepare_request(struct reques > > > if((rq_data_dir(req) == WRITE) && !dev->openflags.w){ > > > printk("Write attempted on readonly ubd device %s\n", > > > disk->disk_name); > > > + WARN_ON(1); /* This should be impossible now */ > > > end_request(req, 0); > > > return(1); > > > } > > > > I don't think that's a sound change. The WARN_ON() is strictly only > > really useful for when you need the stack trace for something > > interesting. As the io happens async, you will get a boring trace that > > doesn't contain any valuable information. > Ok, removed, and resending the patch, is the rest ok? I.e. is that > supposed to work? I gave a walk around and it seemed that the code > handles set_{disk,device}_ro() even during the open, but I'm no block > layer expert.
I'd keep the checks for sanity. Although the set_disk/device_ro prevents regular fs write mounts, a buggy layered drive could still send down a write by accident.
-- 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/
| |