Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:32:04 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next 1/3] md/raid10: fix improper BUG_ON() in raise_barrier() | From | Paul Menzel <> |
| |
Dear John,
Am 29.08.22 um 21:53 schrieb John Stoffel: >>>>>> "Yu" == Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> writes: > > Yu> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
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@huawei.com> > 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
| |