| Message ID | 20170701003252.13171-2-vishal.l.verma@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 7e5a21dfe552 |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> wrote: > A leftover from the 'bandaid' fix that disabled BTT error clearing in > rw_bytes resulted in an incorrect check. After we converted these checks > over to use the NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC flag, the ndns->claim check was both > redundant, and incorrect. Remove it. > > Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> > --- > drivers/nvdimm/claim.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > index 8d23f68..f8ad92b 100644 > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > @@ -289,8 +289,7 @@ static int nsio_rw_bytes(struct nd_namespace_common *ndns, > * work around this collision. > */ > if (IS_ALIGNED(offset, 512) && IS_ALIGNED(size, 512) > - && !(flags & NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC) > - && !ndns->claim) { > + && !(flags & NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC)) { Should this also go to -stable otherwise we won't clear errors on pmem devices claimed by 'pfn' instances, right?
On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 18:39 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.c > om> wrote: > > A leftover from the 'bandaid' fix that disabled BTT error clearing > > in > > rw_bytes resulted in an incorrect check. After we converted these > > checks > > over to use the NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC flag, the ndns->claim check was > > both > > redundant, and incorrect. Remove it. > > > > Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/nvdimm/claim.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > > index 8d23f68..f8ad92b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > > @@ -289,8 +289,7 @@ static int nsio_rw_bytes(struct > > nd_namespace_common *ndns, > > * work around this collision. > > */ > > if (IS_ALIGNED(offset, 512) && IS_ALIGNED(size, > > 512) > > - && !(flags & NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC) > > - && !ndns->claim) { > > + && !(flags & NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC)) { > > Should this also go to -stable otherwise we won't clear errors on > pmem > devices claimed by 'pfn' instances, right? Yes I think it should.. Should I just resend with stable CC'd? > _______________________________________________ > Linux-nvdimm mailing list > Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c index 8d23f68..f8ad92b 100644 --- a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c @@ -289,8 +289,7 @@ static int nsio_rw_bytes(struct nd_namespace_common *ndns, * work around this collision. */ if (IS_ALIGNED(offset, 512) && IS_ALIGNED(size, 512) - && !(flags & NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC) - && !ndns->claim) { + && !(flags & NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC)) { long cleared; cleared = nvdimm_clear_poison(&ndns->dev,
A leftover from the 'bandaid' fix that disabled BTT error clearing in rw_bytes resulted in an incorrect check. After we converted these checks over to use the NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC flag, the ndns->claim check was both redundant, and incorrect. Remove it. Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> --- drivers/nvdimm/claim.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)