Dear John,
Am 29.08.22 um 21:53 schrieb John Stoffel:
"Yu" == Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Yu> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
The quoting style is really confusing, as it does not seem to be the
standard, and a lot of MUAs won’t mark up the citation.
[…]
Yu> 'conf->barrier' is protected by 'conf->resync_lock', reading
Yu> 'conf->barrier' without holding the lock is wrong.
Yu> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Yu> ---
Yu> drivers/md/raid10.c | 2 +-
Yu> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Yu> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
Yu> index 9117fcdee1be..b70c207f7932 100644
Yu> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
Yu> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
Yu> @@ -930,8 +930,8 @@ static void flush_pending_writes(struct r10conf *conf)
Yu> static void raise_barrier(struct r10conf *conf, int force)
Yu> {
Yu> - BUG_ON(force && !conf->barrier);
Yu> spin_lock_irq(&conf->resync_lock);
Yu> + BUG_ON(force && !conf->barrier);
I don't like this BUG_ON() at all, why are you crashing the system
here instead of just doing a simple WARN_ONCE() instead? Is there
anything the user can do to get into this situation on their own, or
does it really signify a logic error in the code? If so, why are you
killing the system?
As you can see, the BUG_ON() was there before, so it’s unrelated to this
patch and Yun is not killing anything.
[…]
Yu> /* Wait until no block IO is waiting (unless 'force') */
Yu> wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_barrier, force || !conf->nr_waiting,
Yu> --
Yu> 2.31.1
Kind regards,
Paul
