On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29 2015 at 5:43pm -0500,
One of my commits relocated the initialization, but I didn't realize it
had a hard dependency on the follow-on commit. Should we reorder that
part of the series?
Which follow on commit are you referring to? Please be specific about
which commits you think are out of order.
Also, what are you testing... are you using the linux-dm.git tree's
'dm-for-3.20' branch which builds on Jens' 'for-3.20/core'?
If not please test that and see if you still have problems (without the
associated DM changes all the block preparation changes that Jens
cherry-picked shouldn't cause any problems at all).
I'm using Jens' linux-block for-3.20/core branch. The last dm commit
is this:
commit febf71588c2a750e04dc2a8b0824ce120c48bd9e
Author: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Oct 17 17:46:35 2014 -0600
block: require blk_rq_prep_clone() be given an initialized clone request
Looking at this again, the above was incorrect in the first place: it
initialized the original, but the intent was to initialize the clone. This
slipped by me since the next part of the series fixed it. In your linux-dm
dm-for-3.20, it's this commit:
commit 102e38b1030e883efc022dfdc7b7e7a3de70d1c5
Author: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Dec 5 17:11:05 2014 -0500
dm: split request structure out from dm_rq_target_io structure
So I was confused earlier, there's no need to reorder anything. I just
need to fix the broken part.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
