[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: dm-devel
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] FW: Re: calling dm_io
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka () redhat ! com>
Date: 2012-11-13 1:27:29
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.1211122019450.11950 () file ! rdu ! redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
It doesn't seem to matter if you use REQ_FLUSH or WRITE_FLUSH, but for
consistency, you can apply this patch.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> We use a mixture of REQ_FLUSH and WRITE_FLUSH in dm.
>
> fs.h:#define WRITE_FLUSH (WRITE | REQ_SYNC | REQ_NOIDLE | REQ_FLUSH)
>
> Could you do a quick check that we always use the right one in the right
> places?
>
> Alasdair
>
> ----- Forwarded message from "Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com> -----
>
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:51:36 +0200
> From: "Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dm-devel] calling dm_io
> To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:04:44PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> >> So it expects caller to initialize notify.fn, but in couple of places
> >> it is not done when allocating on stack...
> >
> > As far as I can see it is initialised where it needs to be.
> >
> >> struct dm_io_request io_req = {
> >> ....,
> >> .notify.fn = NULL,
> >> };
> >
> > (Struct members not listed explicitly are initialised according to the same
> > rules used for initialising static variables. IOW a pointer is initialised
> > to NULL.)
>
> oh. indeed.
>
>
> dm_bufio_issue_flush() uses REQ_FLUSH, but all other places in the
> kernel use WRITE_FLUSH...
> Should dm_bufio_issue_flush() also use WRITE_FLUSH?
>
> - Dmitry
>
>
> >
> > Alasdair
> >
> > --
> > dm-devel mailing list
> > dm-devel@redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
>
> --
> dm-devel mailing list
> dm-devel@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
dm-bufio: use WRITE_FLUSH instead of REQ_FLUSH
Use WRITE_FLUSH instead of REQ_FLUSH to make it consistent with the rest
of the kernel. There is no functional change - the kernel accepts either
WRITE_FLUSH or REQ_FLUSH.
Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
---
drivers/md/dm-bufio.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-3.6.6-fast/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c
===================================================================
--- linux-3.6.6-fast.orig/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c 2012-11-13 02:13:01.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-3.6.6-fast/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c 2012-11-13 02:13:08.000000000 +0100
@@ -1194,7 +1194,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dm_bufio_write_dirty_b
int dm_bufio_issue_flush(struct dm_bufio_client *c)
{
struct dm_io_request io_req = {
- .bi_rw = REQ_FLUSH,
+ .bi_rw = WRITE_FLUSH,
.mem.type = DM_IO_KMEM,
.mem.ptr.addr = NULL,
.client = c->dm_io,
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic