[PULL] bcache fixes for v4.5-rc6

[PULL] bcache fixes for v4.5-rc6

[Eric Wheeler]

Hi Jens,

Can we still get these in for 4.5?  One is a race, the other is just error 
handling.

Please pull:
  git pull https://bitbucket.org/ewheelerinc/linux.git v4.5-rc6-bcache-fixes 

bcache: fix race of writeback thread starting before complete initialization
bcache: cleaned up error handling around register_cache()


# git diff --stat HEAD~2
 drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 44 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

-Eric


--
Eric Wheeler, President           eWheeler, Inc. dba Global Linux Security
888-LINUX26 (888-546-8926)        Fax: 503-716-3878           PO Box 25107
www.GlobalLinuxSecurity.pro       Linux since 1996!     Portland, OR 97298

Re: [PULL] bcache fixes for v4.5-rc6

[Jens Axboe]

On 02/29/2016 06:08 PM, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> Can we still get these in for 4.5?  One is a race, the other is just error
> handling.
>
> Please pull:
>    git pull https://bitbucket.org/ewheelerinc/linux.git v4.5-rc6-bcache-fixes
>
> bcache: fix race of writeback thread starting before complete initialization
> bcache: cleaned up error handling around register_cache()

They look simple enough, though I generally don't like collapsing things 
like this:

if ((ret = cache_alloc(sb, ca)) != 0)

it's easy to screw up, doing

ret = cache_alloc(sb, ca);
if (ret != 0)
     ...

is a lot more readable and harder to screw up. Can we get that cleaned 
up? We can still make 4.5, I've got a bunch pending that's going out 
today, and these two would have missed the boat for today anyway. But 
that doesn't mean we can't get them out later this week.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PULL] bcache fixes for v4.5-rc6

[Eric Wheeler]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:

> On 02/29/2016 06:08 PM, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > Can we still get these in for 4.5?  One is a race, the other is just error
> > handling.
> >
> > Please pull:
> >    git pull https://bitbucket.org/ewheelerinc/linux.git
> >    v4.5-rc6-bcache-fixes
> >
> > bcache: fix race of writeback thread starting before complete initialization
> > bcache: cleaned up error handling around register_cache()
> 
> They look simple enough, though I generally don't like collapsing things like
> this:
> 
> if ((ret = cache_alloc(sb, ca)) != 0)
> 
> it's easy to screw up, doing
> 
> ret = cache_alloc(sb, ca);
> if (ret != 0)
>     ...

Done.  Rebased, fixed, and push --force'ed.  

BTW, Is there a better (preferred) way vs. push --force?  Some say push 
--force can break things.

> 
> is a lot more readable and harder to screw up. Can we get that cleaned up? We
> can still make 4.5, I've got a bunch pending that's going out today, and these
> two would have missed the boat for today anyway. But that doesn't mean we
> can't get them out later this week.

Thanks!

-Eric

> -- 
> Jens Axboe
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: [PULL] bcache fixes for v4.5-rc6

[Jens Axboe]

On 03/02/2016 07:09 PM, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>> On 02/29/2016 06:08 PM, Eric Wheeler wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> Can we still get these in for 4.5?  One is a race, the other is just error
>>> handling.
>>>
>>> Please pull:
>>>     git pull https://bitbucket.org/ewheelerinc/linux.git
>>>     v4.5-rc6-bcache-fixes
>>>
>>> bcache: fix race of writeback thread starting before complete initialization
>>> bcache: cleaned up error handling around register_cache()
>>
>> They look simple enough, though I generally don't like collapsing things like
>> this:
>>
>> if ((ret = cache_alloc(sb, ca)) != 0)
>>
>> it's easy to screw up, doing
>>
>> ret = cache_alloc(sb, ca);
>> if (ret != 0)
>>      ...
>
> Done.  Rebased, fixed, and push --force'ed.

Cool, I will pull it in.

> BTW, Is there a better (preferred) way vs. push --force?  Some say push
> --force can break things.

If you rebased, there's really no way around that, other than spinning a 
new branch with the new changes. The rebase is what breaks things for 
people, the --force is just a side effect since you have to do that to 
push it to the same branch again. It's only really a concern if people 
are continually pulling from you and developing on top of your branch, 
for something like this, it's not a huge problem.

-- 
Jens Axboe