From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755681AbaHZVd5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:33:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]:62299 "EHLO mail-pd0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754907AbaHZVd4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:33:56 -0400 Message-ID: <53FCFD40.2010903@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:33:52 -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 CC: Joe Lawrence , 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: 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 03:27 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Jens Axboe writes: > >> 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. > > Sorry, I was mislead by our earlier conversation on this (mail inline > below). I changed my mind, it didn't feel fully baked to me. >> 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. > > Joe, you will have one hunk to modify for sure, in scsi_ioctl.c. A > previous patch added a check for null, but ended up returning the wrong > value (ENOMEM instead of ENODEV). I have applied the first one, will look over the second one and hand apply it. Seems the NULL return was completely removed, so we _should_ be ok on the IS_ERR() conversion, though that sort of thing always worries me a little bit. A NULL return can quickly show up again, and then they would all fail. -- Jens Axboe