On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:20:25AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 15/08/16 21:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
> >> Hmm ... Since REQ_SECURE implied REQ_DISCARD doesn't this
> >> mean that we should include REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:20:25AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 15/08/16 21:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
> >> Hmm ... Since REQ_SECURE implied REQ_DISCARD doesn't this
> >> mean that we should include REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE
On 15/08/16 21:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
>> Hmm ... Since REQ_SECURE implied REQ_DISCARD doesn't this
>> mean that we should include REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE checking
>> wherever REQ_OP_DISCARD is being checked now in
On 15/08/16 21:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
>> Hmm ... Since REQ_SECURE implied REQ_DISCARD doesn't this
>> mean that we should include REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE checking
>> wherever REQ_OP_DISCARD is being checked now in
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:16:30PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> This really should be a:
>>
>> if (req_op(rq) != req_op(pos))
>>
>> I'l lleave it up to Jens if he wants that in this patch or not, otherwise
>> I'll send an incremental patch.
>
> Let's get a v2 with that fixed up, it makes a big
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:16:30PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> This really should be a:
>>
>> if (req_op(rq) != req_op(pos))
>>
>> I'l lleave it up to Jens if he wants that in this patch or not, otherwise
>> I'll send an incremental patch.
>
> Let's get a v2 with that fixed up, it makes a big
On 08/15/2016 12:13 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
--- a/block/elevator.c
+++ b/block/elevator.c
@@ -366,7 +366,10 @@ void elv_dispatch_sort(struct request_queue *q, struct
request *rq)
list_for_each_prev(entry, >queue_head) {
struct request *pos = list_entry_rq(entry);
-
On 08/15/2016 12:13 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
--- a/block/elevator.c
+++ b/block/elevator.c
@@ -366,7 +366,10 @@ void elv_dispatch_sort(struct request_queue *q, struct
request *rq)
list_for_each_prev(entry, >queue_head) {
struct request *pos = list_entry_rq(entry);
-
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
> Hmm ... Since REQ_SECURE implied REQ_DISCARD doesn't this
> mean that we should include REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE checking
> wherever REQ_OP_DISCARD is being checked now in drivers/scsi/sd.c ?
>
> (It's only in 3 spots so it's a quickie
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
> Hmm ... Since REQ_SECURE implied REQ_DISCARD doesn't this
> mean that we should include REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE checking
> wherever REQ_OP_DISCARD is being checked now in drivers/scsi/sd.c ?
>
> (It's only in 3 spots so it's a quickie
> --- a/block/elevator.c
> +++ b/block/elevator.c
> @@ -366,7 +366,10 @@ void elv_dispatch_sort(struct request_queue *q, struct
> request *rq)
> list_for_each_prev(entry, >queue_head) {
> struct request *pos = list_entry_rq(entry);
>
> - if ((req_op(rq) ==
> --- a/block/elevator.c
> +++ b/block/elevator.c
> @@ -366,7 +366,10 @@ void elv_dispatch_sort(struct request_queue *q, struct
> request *rq)
> list_for_each_prev(entry, >queue_head) {
> struct request *pos = list_entry_rq(entry);
>
> - if ((req_op(rq) ==
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Commit 288dab8a35a0 ("block: add a separate operation type for secure
> erase") split REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE from REQ_OP_DISCARD without considering
> all the places REQ_OP_DISCARD was being used to mean either. Fix
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Commit 288dab8a35a0 ("block: add a separate operation type for secure
> erase") split REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE from REQ_OP_DISCARD without considering
> all the places REQ_OP_DISCARD was being used to mean either. Fix those.
>
> Signed-off-by:
Commit 288dab8a35a0 ("block: add a separate operation type for secure
erase") split REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE from REQ_OP_DISCARD without considering
all the places REQ_OP_DISCARD was being used to mean either. Fix those.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter
Fixes: 288dab8a35a0
Commit 288dab8a35a0 ("block: add a separate operation type for secure
erase") split REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE from REQ_OP_DISCARD without considering
all the places REQ_OP_DISCARD was being used to mean either. Fix those.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter
Fixes: 288dab8a35a0 ("block: add a separate
16 matches
Mail list logo