From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755546AbaHZVY2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:24:28 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:34087 "EHLO mail-pd0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755326AbaHZVY1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:24:27 -0400 Message-ID: <53FCFB08.4080706@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:24:24 -0600 From: Jens Axboe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Moyer , Joe Lawrence CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina , Boaz Harrosh Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] block,scsi: fixup blk_get_request dead queue scenarios References: <1404329718-19367-1-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@stratus.com> <53FCF9DB.6010501@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: <53FCF9DB.6010501@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/26/2014 03:19 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 08/26/2014 11:24 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Joe Lawrence writes: >> >>> v2->v3: rebase to 3.16-rc2, consider return values from the >>> blk_mq_alloc_request leg of the blk_get_request callchain >>> (noted by Jeff), noted in the second patch changelog. >>> >>> blk_mq_queue_enter may return 0 or errno, which >>> blk_mq_alloc_request can propogate out via ERR_PTR. >>> __blk_mq_alloc_request doesn't include any blk_queue_dying >>> checks, so I'm assuming that its failures can be attributed >>> to -EWOULDBLOCK under !GFP_WAIT conditions. >>> >>> v1->v2: incorporate Jeff's feedback in bsg_map_hdr() and Reviewed-by >>> tags. >>> >>> Joe Lawrence (2): >>> block,scsi: verify return pointer from blk_get_request >>> block,scsi: fixup blk_get_request dead queue scenarios >> >> Jens, >> >> Did this patch set fall through the cracks again? > > Falling through the cracks implies that I meant to apply it and did not, > which was not the case. But I think we're at the point now where I'm > finally comfortable with applying it. So, Joe, could you ensure that it > applies to 3.17-rc2, then I will roll it in to the updates for 3.18. Actually, just audited a few of them, and conversions like this: - if (!rq) + if (IS_ERR(rq)) will break spectacularly if rq == NULL is returned. Should all these be IS_ERR_OR_NULL? -- Jens Axboe