Prev: [PATCH -next] IR: jvc-decoder needs BITREVERSE
Next: [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.2-rc2
From: Neil Brown on 7 Jul 2010 19:50
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:17:32 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch(a)lst.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 07:05:39AM +0800, Takeo Tung wrote:
> > Dear Christoph,
> >
> > I was check the patch again. I found the panic status haapen on Soft RAID
> > 1. I review it. found some define using bool, so some like ( x & REQ_SYNC)
> > only 0 or 1.
> > so if bi_rw = rw | sync will bi_rw = rw | 0 or rw | 1. not rw | ( 1 <<
> > __REQ_SYNC).
> >
> > So I write a patch is fix it. seems normal now. could you review the patch
> > or any comment?
>
> The patch looks correct to me, although your mailer mangled the
> whitespace badly. If Neil wants to keep the flag as bool we could
> also add a !! around the bit flag checks.

I think it is best to make them "unsigned long" holding the actual but.
They were only made 'bool' because that is was bio_rw_flagged() returned.
Converting to a bool then back to a bit-flag is unnecessary.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Neil Brown on 7 Jul 2010 21:20
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:43:38 +0800
"Takeo Tung" <kernel(a)takeo.idv.tw> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> ok. I rewrite the patch back to bool and re-add bio_rw_flagged fucntion. pls
> review it and any comment?

I'm not sure why you did that.
I meant to say that I liked the fact that you had changed from 'bool' to
'unsigned long' and that I thought using 'bool' was unnecessary. Maybe I
didn't say that very clearly.

It doesn't matter to me particularly which approach is used, but please don't
re-introduce bio_rw_flagged because you think I want it - I don't.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

>
> Thanks,
> Takeo Tung
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Neil Brown" <neilb(a)suse.de>
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:48 AM
> To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch(a)lst.de>
> Cc: "Takeo Tung" <kernel(a)takeo.idv.tw>; "Michal Marek" <mmarek(a)suse.cz>;
> <linux-kernel(a)vger.kernel.org>; <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>;
> <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct io panic on raid1 - Re: block: unify flags for
> struct bio and struct request will kernel panic
>
> > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:17:32 +0200
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch(a)lst.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 07:05:39AM +0800, Takeo Tung wrote:
> >> > Dear Christoph,
> >> >
> >> > I was check the patch again. I found the panic status haapen on Soft
> >> > RAID
> >> > 1. I review it. found some define using bool, so some like ( x &
> >> > REQ_SYNC)
> >> > only 0 or 1.
> >> > so if bi_rw = rw | sync will bi_rw = rw | 0 or rw | 1. not rw | ( 1 <<
> >> > __REQ_SYNC).
> >> >
> >> > So I write a patch is fix it. seems normal now. could you review the
> >> > patch
> >> > or any comment?
> >>
> >> The patch looks correct to me, although your mailer mangled the
> >> whitespace badly. If Neil wants to keep the flag as bool we could
> >> also add a !! around the bit flag checks.
> >
> > I think it is best to make them "unsigned long" holding the actual but.
> > They were only made 'bool' because that is was bio_rw_flagged() returned.
> > Converting to a bool then back to a bit-flag is unnecessary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > NeilBrown
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [PATCH -next] IR: jvc-decoder needs BITREVERSE
Next: [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.2-rc2