* Re: linux-2.6-block/for-next: Removal of BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER and BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT
2010-10-18 7:13 ` Jens Axboe
@ 2010-10-18 11:11 ` Sedat Dilek
2010-10-18 13:01 ` Sedat Dilek
2010-10-19 12:12 ` Sedat Dilek
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sedat Dilek @ 2010-10-18 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-ext4, Theodore Ts'o
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 955 bytes --]
Hi Jens,
thanks for the fast reply.
I had a quick view on my local GIT repository after pulling both GIT branches.
Does this attached (untested) patch fix the seen issues?
Thanks in advance.
Kind Regards,
- Sedat -
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> On 2010-10-18 02:11, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> today, I pulled linux-2.6-block/for-next GIT branch [1] on top of
>> Linus-tree (2.6.36-rc8-git3).
>>
>> Unfortunately, ext4/next GIT branch [2] is not "GIT-pull-able" on top
>> of this local GIT repository.
>> The cause for this is the removal of BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER and
>> BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT in linux-2.6-block/for-next.
>>
>> As there are few days left for 2.6.36-final, it would be great when
>> ext4/next could be prepared to work with linux-2.6-block/for-next.
>> Thanks in advance.
>
> The argument just has to be removed. linux-next has had a fixup
> patch for this for a long time.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-ext4-Remove-BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT-and-BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER-r.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2516 bytes --]
From aa1ff3009c3cf9975caf0baea9c1f75107f3eb1e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:01:07 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] ext4: Remove BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT and BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER relicts
These removals were necessary after pulling ext4/next GIT branch on top of linux-2.6-block/for-next.
For more Details see also [1].
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=128736068809814&w=2
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 2 +-
fs/ext4/ialloc.c | 3 ---
fs/ext4/resize.c | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index a0e6230..b738e6f 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -2546,7 +2546,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_zeroout(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_extent *ex)
ee_pblock = ext_pblock(ex);
ret = sb_issue_zeroout(inode->i_sb, ee_pblock, ee_len,
- GFP_NOFS, BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT);
+ GFP_NOFS, 0);
if (ret > 0)
ret = 0;
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
index 87d228a..cc3a180 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
@@ -1238,7 +1238,6 @@ extern int ext4_init_inode_table(struct super_block *sb, ext4_group_t group,
handle_t *handle;
ext4_fsblk_t blk;
int num, ret = 0, used_blks = 0;
- unsigned long flags = BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT;
/* This should not happen, but just to be sure check this */
if (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) {
@@ -1303,8 +1302,6 @@ extern int ext4_init_inode_table(struct super_block *sb, ext4_group_t group,
ext4_debug("going to zero out inode table in group %d\n",
group);
- if (barrier)
- flags |= BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER;
ret = sb_issue_zeroout(sb, blk, num, GFP_NOFS, flags);
if (ret < 0)
goto err_out;
diff --git a/fs/ext4/resize.c b/fs/ext4/resize.c
index 2f5e347..0f1f30c 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/resize.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/resize.c
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ static int setup_new_group_blocks(struct super_block *sb,
ext4_debug("clear inode table blocks %#04llx -> %#04llx\n",
block, sbi->s_itb_per_group);
err = sb_issue_zeroout(sb, gdblocks + start + 1, reserved_gdb,
- GFP_NOFS, BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT);
+ GFP_NOFS, 0);
if (err)
goto exit_bh;
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static int setup_new_group_blocks(struct super_block *sb,
ext4_debug("clear inode table blocks %#04llx -> %#04llx\n",
block, sbi->s_itb_per_group);
err = sb_issue_zeroout(sb, block, sbi->s_itb_per_group,
- GFP_NOFS, BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT);
+ GFP_NOFS, 0);
if (err)
goto exit_bh;
--
1.7.2.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: linux-2.6-block/for-next: Removal of BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER and BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT
2010-10-18 7:13 ` Jens Axboe
2010-10-18 11:11 ` Sedat Dilek
@ 2010-10-18 13:01 ` Sedat Dilek
2010-10-19 12:12 ` Sedat Dilek
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sedat Dilek @ 2010-10-18 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-ext4, Theodore Ts'o
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1405 bytes --]
Commit 4bcf787b503fa96c5a2f529ce15807dc670853ed from ext4/next [1]:
"Add helper function for blkdev_issue_zeroout (sb_issue_discard)"
...lead to some rework of my initial patch, so here is v2 attached.
As blkdev_issue_zeroout() has no more "flags", this has to be
considered also in sb_issue_zeroout() and also in my v2 patch.
[ block/blk-lib.c ]
...
int blkdev_issue_zeroout(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask)
...
Looks like this is compiling w/o errors in fs/ext4 tree.
- Sedat -
[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git;a=commit;h=4bcf787b503fa96c5a2f529ce15807dc670853ed
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> On 2010-10-18 02:11, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> today, I pulled linux-2.6-block/for-next GIT branch [1] on top of
>> Linus-tree (2.6.36-rc8-git3).
>>
>> Unfortunately, ext4/next GIT branch [2] is not "GIT-pull-able" on top
>> of this local GIT repository.
>> The cause for this is the removal of BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER and
>> BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT in linux-2.6-block/for-next.
>>
>> As there are few days left for 2.6.36-final, it would be great when
>> ext4/next could be prepared to work with linux-2.6-block/for-next.
>> Thanks in advance.
>
> The argument just has to be removed. linux-next has had a fixup
> patch for this for a long time.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-ext4-Remove-BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT-and-BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER-r-v2.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2507 bytes --]
From aa1ff3009c3cf9975caf0baea9c1f75107f3eb1e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:01:07 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] ext4: Remove BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT and BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER relicts
These removals were necessary after pulling ext4/next GIT branch on top of linux-2.6-block/for-next.
For more Details see also [1].
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=128736068809814&w=2
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 2 +-
fs/ext4/ialloc.c | 3 ---
fs/ext4/resize.c | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index a0e6230..b738e6f 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -2546,7 +2546,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_zeroout(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_extent *ex)
ee_pblock = ext_pblock(ex);
ret = sb_issue_zeroout(inode->i_sb, ee_pblock, ee_len,
- GFP_NOFS, BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT);
+ GFP_NOFS);
if (ret > 0)
ret = 0;
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
index 87d228a..cc3a180 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
@@ -1238,7 +1238,6 @@ extern int ext4_init_inode_table(struct super_block *sb, ext4_group_t group,
handle_t *handle;
ext4_fsblk_t blk;
int num, ret = 0, used_blks = 0;
- unsigned long flags = BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT;
/* This should not happen, but just to be sure check this */
if (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) {
@@ -1303,8 +1302,6 @@ extern int ext4_init_inode_table(struct super_block *sb, ext4_group_t group,
ext4_debug("going to zero out inode table in group %d\n",
group);
- if (barrier)
- flags |= BLKDEV_IFL_BARRIER;
ret = sb_issue_zeroout(sb, blk, num, GFP_NOFS, flags);
if (ret < 0)
goto err_out;
diff --git a/fs/ext4/resize.c b/fs/ext4/resize.c
index 2f5e347..0f1f30c 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/resize.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/resize.c
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ static int setup_new_group_blocks(struct super_block *sb,
ext4_debug("clear inode table blocks %#04llx -> %#04llx\n",
block, sbi->s_itb_per_group);
err = sb_issue_zeroout(sb, gdblocks + start + 1, reserved_gdb,
- GFP_NOFS, BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT);
+ GFP_NOFS);
if (err)
goto exit_bh;
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static int setup_new_group_blocks(struct super_block *sb,
ext4_debug("clear inode table blocks %#04llx -> %#04llx\n",
block, sbi->s_itb_per_group);
err = sb_issue_zeroout(sb, block, sbi->s_itb_per_group,
- GFP_NOFS, BLKDEV_IFL_WAIT);
+ GFP_NOFS);
if (err)
goto exit_bh;
--
1.7.2.3
[-- Attachment #3: ext4-Fix-error-too-many-arguments-to-function-blkdev_issue_zeroout.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 724 bytes --]
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/blkdev.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -892,12 +892,12 @@ static inline int sb_issue_discard(struc
gfp_mask, flags);
}
static inline int sb_issue_zeroout(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block,
- sector_t nr_blocks, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned long flags)
+ sector_t nr_blocks, gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
return blkdev_issue_zeroout(sb->s_bdev,
block << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - 9),
nr_blocks << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - 9),
- gfp_mask, flags);
+ gfp_mask);
}
extern int blk_verify_command(unsigned char *cmd, fmode_t has_write_perm);
[-- Attachment #4: ext4-Fix-error-too-many-arguments-to-function-sb_issue_zeroout.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 448 bytes --]
Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
+++ linux-2.6/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
@@ -1302,7 +1302,7 @@ extern int ext4_init_inode_table(struct
ext4_debug("going to zero out inode table in group %d\n",
group);
- ret = sb_issue_zeroout(sb, blk, num, GFP_NOFS, flags);
+ ret = sb_issue_zeroout(sb, blk, num, GFP_NOFS);
if (ret < 0)
goto err_out;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread