From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <1487556740.2244.15.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block pull request for- 4.11-rc1 From: James Bottomley To: Jens Axboe , Bart Van Assche , Linus Torvalds Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Christoph Hellwig , Mike Snitzer Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:12:20 -0800 In-Reply-To: <633d226d-cec3-a01f-a069-ffff307e9715@kernel.dk> References: <1D08B61A9CF0974AA09887BE32D889DA0A74F3@ULS-OP-MBXIP03.sdcorp.global.sandisk.com> <633d226d-cec3-a01f-a069-ffff307e9715@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 18:15 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 02/19/2017 06:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > - Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct request, and > > > refactoring of > > > carrying SCSI payloads in the block layer. This cleans up the > > > code > > > nicely, and enables us to kill the SCSI specific parts of > > > struct > > > request, shrinking it down nicely. From Christoph mainly, with > > > help > > > from Hannes. > > > > Hello Jens, Christoph and Mike, > > > > Is anyone working on a fix for the regression introduced by the > > BLOCK_PC removal changes (general protection fault) that I had > > reported three weeks ago? See also > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg55494.html > > I don't think that's a regression in this series, it just triggers > more easily with this series. The BLOCK_PC removal fixes aren't > touching device life times at all. > > That said, we will look into this again, of course. Christoph, any > idea? We could do with tracing the bdi removal failure issue fingered both by the block xfstests and Omar. It's something to do with this set of commits > - Fixes for duplicate bdi registrations and bdi/queue life time > problems from Jan and Dan. But no-one has actually root caused it yet. James