On 10/19/12 23:53, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:20:53PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hey, Vivek.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:31:49AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> Tejun, for the sake of readability, are you fine with keeping the original
>>> check and original patch which I
On 10/19/12 23:53, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:20:53PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hey, Vivek.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:31:49AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Tejun, for the sake of readability, are you fine with keeping the original
check and original patch which I had acked.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:20:53PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Vivek.
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:31:49AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Tejun, for the sake of readability, are you fine with keeping the original
> > check and original patch which I had acked.
>
> Can you please send another
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 02:20:53PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hey, Vivek.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:31:49AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Tejun, for the sake of readability, are you fine with keeping the original
check and original patch which I had acked.
Can you please send another patch to
Hey, Vivek.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:31:49AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Tejun, for the sake of readability, are you fine with keeping the original
> check and original patch which I had acked.
Can you please send another patch to change that? It really isn't a
related change and I don't
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:56:34AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
[..]
> >>> if (ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
> >>
> >> So ent is not >root_blkg->q_node.
> >
> > If q->root_blkg is NULL, will it not lead to NULL pointer dereference.
> > (q->root_blkg->q_node).
>
> It's not dereferenced.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:56:34AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
[..]
if (ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
So ent is not q-root_blkg-q_node.
If q-root_blkg is NULL, will it not lead to NULL pointer dereference.
(q-root_blkg-q_node).
It's not dereferenced.
Ok. We are taking
Hey, Vivek.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:31:49AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Tejun, for the sake of readability, are you fine with keeping the original
check and original patch which I had acked.
Can you please send another patch to change that? It really isn't a
related change and I don't wanna
On 10/17/12 22:47, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:02:22AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
>> On 10/17/12 08:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> -if (ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
>> +if (q->root_blkg && ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
>
> Can we fix it little
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:02:22AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> On 10/17/12 08:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
> -if (ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
> +if (q->root_blkg && ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
> >>>
> >>> Can we fix it little differently. Little earlier in the code, we check
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:02:22AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
On 10/17/12 08:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
-if (ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
+if (q-root_blkg ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
Can we fix it little differently. Little earlier in the code, we check for
if q-blkg_list is
On 10/17/12 22:47, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:02:22AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
On 10/17/12 08:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
-if (ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
+if (q-root_blkg ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
Can we fix it little differently. Little earlier in the
On 10/17/12 08:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
- if (ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
+ if (q->root_blkg && ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
>>>
>>> Can we fix it little differently. Little earlier in the code, we check for
>>> if q->blkg_list is empty, then all the groups are gone, and there are
>>> no more
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:31:46AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> >> - if (ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
> >> + if (q->root_blkg && ent == >root_blkg->q_node)
> >
> > Can we fix it little differently. Little earlier in the code, we check for
> > if q->blkg_list is empty, then all the
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:31:46AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
- if (ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
+ if (q-root_blkg ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
Can we fix it little differently. Little earlier in the code, we check for
if q-blkg_list is empty, then all the groups are gone, and
On 10/17/12 08:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
- if (ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
+ if (q-root_blkg ent == q-root_blkg-q_node)
Can we fix it little differently. Little earlier in the code, we check for
if q-blkg_list is empty, then all the groups are gone, and there are
no more request lists hence and
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:31:46AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
[..]
> Below is the updated version of the patch.
>
> ==
> blk_put_rl() does not call blkg_put() for q->root_rl because we
> don't take request list reference on
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:31:46AM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
[..]
Below is the updated version of the patch.
==
blk_put_rl() does not call blkg_put() for q-root_rl because we
don't take request list reference on
Hi Vivek, thank you for comments.
On 10/11/12 00:59, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I think patch looks reasonable to me. Just that some more description
> would be nice. In fact, I will prefer some code comments too as I
> had to scratch my head for a while to figure out how did we reach here.
>
> So
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:11:03PM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> I got system stall after the following warning with 3.6:
>
> > WARNING: at /work/build/linux/block/blk-cgroup.h:250 blk_put_rl+0x4d/0x95()
> > Modules linked in: bridge stp llc sunrpc acpi_cpufreq freq_table mperf
> > ipt_REJEC
>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:11:03PM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
I got system stall after the following warning with 3.6:
WARNING: at /work/build/linux/block/blk-cgroup.h:250 blk_put_rl+0x4d/0x95()
Modules linked in: bridge stp llc sunrpc acpi_cpufreq freq_table mperf
ipt_REJEC
T
Hi Vivek, thank you for comments.
On 10/11/12 00:59, Vivek Goyal wrote:
I think patch looks reasonable to me. Just that some more description
would be nice. In fact, I will prefer some code comments too as I
had to scratch my head for a while to figure out how did we reach here.
So looks
I got system stall after the following warning with 3.6:
> WARNING: at /work/build/linux/block/blk-cgroup.h:250 blk_put_rl+0x4d/0x95()
> Modules linked in: bridge stp llc sunrpc acpi_cpufreq freq_table mperf
> ipt_REJEC
> T nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4
> Pid: 0, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
I got system stall after the following warning with 3.6:
WARNING: at /work/build/linux/block/blk-cgroup.h:250 blk_put_rl+0x4d/0x95()
Modules linked in: bridge stp llc sunrpc acpi_cpufreq freq_table mperf
ipt_REJEC
T nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4
Pid: 0, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0
24 matches
Mail list logo
