Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx" <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"
From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:17:08 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "hch@xxxxxx" <hch@xxxxxx>, "linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "axboe@xxxxxxxxx" <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, "snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx" <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20180619181618.GA19298@kmo-pixel>
References: <20180619172640.15246-1-bart.vanassche@wdc.com> <20180619181618.GA19298@kmo-pixel>
Wdcipoutbound: EOP-TRUE

On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 14:16 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> I take it if we had a test for request based dm in blktests or somewhere that
> probably would have caught this much easier :/

I'm working on porting the srp-test software to the blktests framework.

Bart.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"
  - From: Jens Axboe

References:
- [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"
  - From: Bart Van Assche
- Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"
  - From: Kent Overstreet

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "block: Add warning for bi_next not NULL in bio_endio()"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux ATA RAID] [IDE] [Linux Wireless] [Linux Kernel] [ATH6KL] [Linux Bluetooth] [Linux Netdev] [Kernel Newbies] [Security] [Git] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Device Mapper]