On Thu, Jan 29 2015 at 6:44pm -0500, Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Oof, yeah that first commit should be using: blk_rq_init(NULL, clone); Jens, any chance you could rebase commit febf71588c2a with s/rq/clone/ in dm.c:clone_rq's call to blk_rq_init? -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
