From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754279Ab1AJSwU (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:52:20 -0500 Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([64.244.102.30]:38656 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754008Ab1AJSwT (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:52:19 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1294685538-17894ee60001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4D2B555C.5090109@fusionio.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:52:12 +0100 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ltuikov@yahoo.com" CC: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BLOCK] Allow tag 0 to be generated References: <1266.36669.qm@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4D2B54CE.3080301@fusionio.com> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [PATCH] [BLOCK] Allow tag 0 to be generated In-Reply-To: <4D2B54CE.3080301@fusionio.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1294685538 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.180:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4566 1.0000 0.0000 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.51996 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011-01-10 19:49, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2011-01-10 18:26, Luben Tuikov wrote: >> Commit 67869fb9fdfa04503b250d59e086c15f1698aea0 > > That commit isn't a valid sha in my tree. What commit do you mean? > >> skipped tag 0 by virtue of setting last_tag to >> 0. This commit sets it to -1, in order to start >> and loop over from 0, thus generating tags >> [0,max_tag-1], instead of [1,max_tag-1]. > > Irregardless, patch looks good. That's definitely a bug. Thanks! But not in my kernel, what tree are you looking at? I don't remember seeing any tag patches, and they should be in my tree if there are. -- Jens Axboe