From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DQ9Ai-0001bo-O4 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:23:08 -0700 Received: from smtp005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.36]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.41) id 1DQ9Ah-00081X-Rj for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:23:08 -0700 From: Blaisorblade References: <20050424181924.EAFCB55D06@zion> <20050425101625.GD1671@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20050425101625.GD1671@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504252120.15493.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Subject: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 7/7] uml ubd: handle readonly status Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:20:15 +0200 To: Jens Axboe Cc: akpm@osdl.org, jdike@addtoit.com, bstroesser@fujitsu-siemens.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Monday 25 April 2005 12:16, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24 2005, blaisorblade@yahoo.it wrote: > > @@ -1099,6 +1104,7 @@ static int prepare_request(struct reques > > if((rq_data_dir(req) == WRITE) && !dev->openflags.w){ > > printk("Write attempted on readonly ubd device %s\n", > > disk->disk_name); > > + WARN_ON(1); /* This should be impossible now */ > > end_request(req, 0); > > return(1); > > } > > I don't think that's a sound change. The WARN_ON() is strictly only > really useful for when you need the stack trace for something > interesting. As the io happens async, you will get a boring trace that > doesn't contain any valuable information. Ok, removed, and resending the patch, is the rest ok? I.e. is that supposed to work? I gave a walk around and it seemed that the code handles set_{disk,device}_ro() even during the open, but I'm no block layer expert. Thanks for the review. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Skype user "PaoloGiarrusso" Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel