On 02/19/2017 07:59 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 02/19/2017 07:12 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >> On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 18:15 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 02/19/2017 06:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>> On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> - Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct request, and >>>>> refactoring of >>>>> carrying SCSI payloads in the block layer. This cleans up the >>>>> code >>>>> nicely, and enables us to kill the SCSI specific parts of >>>>> struct >>>>> request, shrinking it down nicely. From Christoph mainly, with >>>>> help >>>>> from Hannes. >>>> >>>> Hello Jens, Christoph and Mike, >>>> >>>> Is anyone working on a fix for the regression introduced by the >>>> BLOCK_PC removal changes (general protection fault) that I had >>>> reported three weeks ago? See also >>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg55494.html >>> >>> I don't think that's a regression in this series, it just triggers >>> more easily with this series. The BLOCK_PC removal fixes aren't >>> touching device life times at all. >>> >>> That said, we will look into this again, of course. Christoph, any >>> idea? >> >> We could do with tracing the bdi removal failure issue fingered both by >> the block xfstests and Omar. It's something to do with this set of >> commits >> >>> - Fixes for duplicate bdi registrations and bdi/queue life time >>> problems from Jan and Dan. >> >> But no-one has actually root caused it yet. > > The above set from Jan and Dan fixed one set of issues around this, and > the reproducer test case was happy as well. But we've recently found > that there are still corner cases that aren't happy, Omar reported that > separately on Friday. So there will be a followup set for that, > hopefully intersecting with the issue that Bart reported. Forgot to mention, that these cases exist in 4.0 and 4.6 as well, so neither are a new problem with this series. The fixes from Jan and Dan didn't close all of them. -- Jens Axboe
