On Tue, Sep 07 2010 at 5:17pm -0400,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 06 2010 at 7:14am -0400,
> Milan Broz <mbroz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 09/03/2010 12:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c
> > > @@ -1278,7 +1278,7 @@ static int crypt_map(struct dm_target *ti, struct bio *bio,
> > > struct dm_crypt_io *io;
> > > struct crypt_config *cc;
> > >
> > > - if (unlikely(bio_empty_barrier(bio))) {
> > > + if (bio->bi_rw & REQ_FLUSH) {
> > > cc = ti->private;
> > > bio->bi_bdev = cc->dev->bdev;
> > > return DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm.c
> > > @@ -1400,14 +1391,22 @@ static void __split_and_process_bio(struct mapped_device *md, struct bio *bio)
> > > ci.io->md = md;
> > > spin_lock_init(&ci.io->endio_lock);
> > > ci.sector = bio->bi_sector;
> > > - ci.sector_count = bio_sectors(bio);
> > > - if (unlikely(bio_empty_barrier(bio)))
> > > + if (!(bio->bi_rw & REQ_FLUSH))
> > > + ci.sector_count = bio_sectors(bio);
> > > + else {
> > > + /* all FLUSH bio's reaching here should be empty */
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(bio_has_data(bio));
> > > ci.sector_count = 1;
> > > + }
> >
> >
> > I would add BUG_ON(bio_has_data(bio)) either to dm-crypt target or directly to DM core
> > in this path.
>
> I agree, that WARN_ON_ONCE should be changed to BUG_ON. This is a
> guarantee that the block layer now provides so it seems correct to have
> the DM core bug if that guarantee isn't actually provided.
I was mistaken, DM enforces that guarantee... ;)
(but block layer will also enforce empty flush for request-based)
But it wasn't clear until Christoph and I looked closer. The point
stands though; we should BUG_ON rather than WARN_ON_ONCE.
I'll send a follow-on patch to help clean this code up a bit more (based
on Christoph's suggestions). Mainly just making the flush paths a bit
more distinct and adding some comments.
Mike
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
