From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, James Smart <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
FUJITA Tomonori <tomof@acm.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <Jens.Axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH version 2] [SQUASHME] "FC Pass Thru support" fixed for block/for-2.6.31 tree
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:43:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1242837810.2881.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A14322A.4000709@panasas.com>
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 19:39 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 05/20/2009 07:20 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 14:47 +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> >> OK, so I think your pulling of my posmerge tree can cope with the fact
> >> that I did the necessary rebasing in block for-next before I made it the
> >> base of my combined tree .... think of this as a nice test.
> >>
> >> Just building now ... if it works, I'll push to SCSI post merge and all
> >> our problems should go away.
> >
> > Unfortunately the combined tree hits a BUG_ON blk-core.c:2045 when doing
> > SPI domain validation.
> >
> > There will be a short delay ...
> >
> > James
> >
> >
>
> I have rebased block/for-next onto linus/master which should give us the
> same content?
>
> But line 2045 is on a code comment.
>
> if I now do a git-log v2.6.30-rc3..HEAD I have the following patches:
> pick 42dad76 block: simplify I/O stat accounting
> pick af498d7 block: fix the bio_vec array index out-of-bounds test
> pick d616ee5 block: clear req->errors on bio completion only for fs requests
> pick 268ea3d block: merge blk_invoke_request_fn() into __blk_run_queue()
> pick d097b7d block: kill blk_start_queueing()
> pick 3099167 block: don't set REQ_NOMERGE unnecessarily
> pick 4095018 block: cleanup REQ_SOFTBARRIER usages
> pick 17fc349 block: reorder request completion functions
> pick 6e6732a block: reorganize request fetching functions
> pick ca219b4 block: kill blk_end_request_callback()
> pick ea1e706 block: clean up request completion API
> pick 70a8607 block: move rq->start_time initialization to blk_rq_init()
> pick fa6e42b block: implement and use [__]blk_end_request_all()
> pick 861af79 block: kill rq->data
> pick 6abeea3 block: make blk_do_io_stat() do the full "is this rq accountable" checks
> pick 2f94129 block: catch trying to use more bits than request->cmd_flags has
> pick 325f440 block: implement blk_rq_pos/[cur_]sectors() and convert obvious ones
> pick 7168ea4 block: convert to pos and nr_sectors accessors
> pick 209e1e4 block: drop request->hard_* and *nr_sectors
> pick 80d23d0 block: hide request sector and data_len
> pick 563e977 block: implement and enforce request peek/start/fetch
> pick 6cd0982 block: move completion related functions back to blk-core.c
> pick 3978c4e block: set rq->resid_len to blk_rq_bytes() on issue
> pick 01f54fd block: Add blk_make_request(), takes bio, returns a request
> pick 0d58792 block: add warning to blk_make_request()
>
> How did you resolve the block/for-next and linus/master merge?
I rebased on to the merge base of scsi-misc.
If you actually just ask scsi-post-merge-2.6 where this line is, it will
tell you:
static void blk_finish_request(struct request *req, int error)
{
BUG_ON(blk_queued_rq(req));
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
if (blk_rq_tagged(req))
blk_queue_end_tag(req->q, req);
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-20 16:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-19 9:18 [PATCH] [SQUASHME] "FC Pass Thru support" fixed for block/for-2.6.31 tree Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-19 9:18 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-19 10:05 ` Tejun Heo
2009-05-19 10:14 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-19 12:54 ` [PATCH version 2] " Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-19 12:54 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-20 1:16 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-05-20 8:11 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-20 12:54 ` James Smart
2009-05-20 14:37 ` James Bottomley
2009-05-20 14:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-05-20 14:47 ` James Bottomley
2009-05-20 16:20 ` James Bottomley
2009-05-20 16:39 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-20 16:40 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-20 16:43 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2009-05-20 16:59 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-20 17:03 ` Boaz Harrosh
2009-05-20 17:11 ` James Bottomley
2009-05-20 14:45 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-05-20 19:10 ` Jens Axboe
2009-05-20 4:16 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1242837810.2881.47.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=James.Smart@Emulex.Com \
--cc=Jens.Axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=bharrosh@panasas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tomof@acm.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.