Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy

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

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:44:13 -0500
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oleksii Kurochko <olkuroch@xxxxxxxxx>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20201113084702.4164912-1-hch@lst.de> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:46:59 +0100")
Organization: Oracle Corporation
References: <20201113084702.4164912-1-hch@lst.de>

Christoph,

> this series resurrects a patch from Martin to properly split the flag
> indicating a disk has been set read-only by the hardware vs the
> userspace policy set through the BLKROSET ioctl.

Looks good in general but two of my test cases failed. Will debug.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

References:
- split hard read-only vs read-only policy
  - From: Christoph Hellwig

Prev by Date: Re: INFO: task can't die in nbd_ioctl
Next by Date: Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: Fix read-only block device setting after revalidate
Next by thread: Re: split hard read-only vs read-only policy
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]

Powered by Linux