On 10.03.2017 15:55, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 10 2017 at 7:34am -0500,
>> Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>>>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>>>> @@ -1975,7 +1975,14 @@ generic_make_request_checks(struct bio *bio)
>>>> */
>>>> blk_qc_t generic_make_request(struct bio *bio)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct bio_list bio_list_on_stack;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * bio_list_on_stack[0] contains bios submitted by the current
>>>> + * make_request_fn.
>>>> + * bio_list_on_stack[1] contains bios that were submitted before
>>>> + * the current make_request_fn, but that haven't been processed
>>>> + * yet.
>>>> + */
>>>> + struct bio_list bio_list_on_stack[2];
>>>> blk_qc_t ret = BLK_QC_T_NONE;
>>>
>>> May I suggest that, if you intend to assign something that is not a
>>> plain &(struct bio_list), but a &(struct bio_list[2]),
>>> you change the task member so it is renamed (current->bio_list vs
>>> current->bio_lists, plural, is what I did last year).
>>> Or you will break external modules, silently, and horribly (or,
>>> rather, they won't notice, but break the kernel).
>>> Examples of such modules would be DRBD, ZFS, quite possibly others.
>>
>> drbd is upstream -- so what is the problem? (if you are having to
>> distribute drbd independent of the upstream drbd then why is drbd
>> upstream?)
>>
>> As for ZFS, worrying about ZFS kABI breakage is the last thing we should
>> be doing.
>
> It's better to make external modules not compile than to silently
> introduce bugs in them. So yes, I would rename that.
>
> Mikulas
Agree, better rename current->bio_list to current->bio_lists
Regards,
Jack
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
