Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:45:57 +0100 | From | Heiko Carstens <> | Subject | Re: + dm-raid1-bitops-bug.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
> Subject: dm raid1: bitops bug > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> > > Commit 8f0205b798f926e2745de5fdebf0a8605c621de6 > "dm raid1: handle recovery failures" introduces a test_bit on an > integer. test_bit is only defined to do something useful on arrays > of long. Remove the test_bit code and use hand coded test bit > instead. > > Cc: Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@redhat.com> > Cc: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > --- > > drivers/md/dm-raid1.c | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff -puN drivers/md/dm-raid1.c~dm-raid1-bitops-bug drivers/md/dm-raid1.c > --- a/drivers/md/dm-raid1.c~dm-raid1-bitops-bug > +++ a/drivers/md/dm-raid1.c > @@ -758,7 +758,8 @@ static void recovery_complete(int read_e > { > struct region *reg = (struct region *)context; > struct mirror_set *ms = reg->rh->ms; > - int m, bit = 0; > + unsigned int mask = 1; > + int m; > > if (read_err) { > /* Read error means the failure of default mirror. */ > @@ -776,10 +777,10 @@ static void recovery_complete(int read_e > for (m = 0; m < ms->nr_mirrors; m++) { > if (&ms->mirror[m] == get_default_mirror(ms)) > continue; > - if (test_bit(bit, &write_err)) > + if (write_err & mask) > fail_mirror(ms->mirror + m, > DM_RAID1_SYNC_ERROR); > - bit++; > + mask <<= 1; > } > }
Could we have this patch or something similar in 2.6.25, please? It's broken doing a test_bit() on an int since the result is random whenever sizeof(int) != sizeof(long). It might also lead to exceptions if an architecture requires a sizeof(long) alignment for test_bit().
| |