From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: md:Fix a bug in function badblocks_show(). Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:01:08 +1000 Message-ID: <20120627130108.732db1ea@notabene.brown> References: <201203081446488121330@gmail.com> <20120314123245.74feeab8@notabene.brown> <201206121703581252053@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/3O=hNUyfvbmp_PqmXpvNtXA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201206121703581252053@gmail.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: kedacomkernel Cc: majianpeng , linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/3O=hNUyfvbmp_PqmXpvNtXA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:04:00 +0800 kedacomkernel wrote: > On 2012-03-14 09:32 NeilBrown Wrote: > >On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:46:52 +0800 "majianpeng" wr= ote: > > > >> >From 58d2ba381eee4b732fca99a7311b1dcf589f57c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: majianpeng > >> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:37:00 +0800 > >> Subject: [PATCH] md:Fix a bug in function badblocks_show(). > >>=20 > >> If unack=3D=3D0, it will show all bad blocks include unacknowledged-ba= d-blocks. > > > >Correct. It is meant to. > >The "bad_blocks" file shows all bad blocks. > >The "unacknowledged_bad_blocks" file show all unacknowledged bad blocks. > > > >Thanks, > >NeilBrown > > > > > >>=20 > >> Signed-off-by: majianpeng > >> --- > >> drivers/md/md.c | 2 +- > >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >>=20 > >> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > >> index ce88755..3f1b6e5 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/md/md.c > >> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c > >> @@ -8091,7 +8091,7 @@ retry: > >> int ack =3D BB_ACK(p[i]); > >> i++; > >> =20 > >> - if (unack && ack) > >> + if ((unack ^ ack) =3D=3D 0) > >> continue; > >> =20 > >> len +=3D snprintf(page+len, PAGE_SIZE-len, "%llu %u\n", > > > > > Hi Neil: > I found this bug in kernel-3.5-rc2.I deem you may lost to apply this pat= ch. No, I didn't lose it. I deliberately chose not to apply it. As I said, the current behaviour is correct. Please read the message that = you replied to. NeilBrown --Sig_/3O=hNUyfvbmp_PqmXpvNtXA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBT+p3dDnsnt1WYoG5AQIs1g//RKet55DnPXc9PTjm4Eg6cXeR3KXJt8yw CxXVIDC2br7fy5vb14fxGxIui3r6qz450k3+55WHpLcylOnIW1w30yHQj8jkQpNk EEFv9oCzaVl/clJ088XY3stqziFN5PsX7NfBteVmex2OowTFf6qwoDupeybB1kFi GsqOvL4Pq3Hmyw9vUx6gvNT09IuhUjrT94xJie8hppnnTvHkFouywLjgLEbtjYjS /IXTy+lNk+QqAxlozgnB2WbSfWPocZws4Ln/nrU3qLSlPpALrOXDgu7M3ThFJ3hF rBtiQeCsRJol0iXxvRcWRrN5jl7cNgVmu66wAvGB1+599ElbtZxR6jMhJmFyB8JI 2I+TCE3DY/iI7SvHMA3K+IWxh4f+qVKLMcX3KNaUb8bdbtu8oFJl9PKe9rTFLnKR 3Q2S8bV7Dxcro7JKmMfzPYjlzUEoiEgts40p/hgX4cmmLIuLqQXV96+awFgZrSdk daRMITbOfjWUUfh+gi2nhTDMnDszLsYbyyZ1aa50AbmBegB1woLSa9RsSykGDF38 aYODp0xdjNcmJWANNiqkSyd53S28+pESDA5LE/tHjledkGwWBF4fqQw/01FlvNHz ITpqQXHIaOuAzYVu/keih+AkzCRH1fO9KHRpnmiKhlY1I0Ugcq1xdl4EZoPfZCWv Yq7GB5ADH2k= =Zfr3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/3O=hNUyfvbmp_PqmXpvNtXA--