From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG Subject: Re: kernel 3.10 + applied bcache patches unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:42:21 +0200 Message-ID: <51DFC16D.60607@profihost.ag> References: <51D542EB.7070404@profihost.ag> <51D56066.80106@profihost.ag> <20130712014017.GE17799@kmo-pixel> <51DF9E21.3060601@profihost.ag> <20130712081901.GB8339@kmo-pixel> <51DFBEEF.3020106@profihost.ag> <51DFC087.4080402@profihost.ag> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51DFC087.4080402-2Lf/h1ldwEHR5kwTpVNS9A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Kent Overstreet Cc: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org it's this one: - bch_writeback_add(dc, bio_sectors(bio)); + bch_writeback_add(dc); from cache: FUA fixes Journal writes need to be marked FUA, not just REQ_FLUSH. And btree nod= e writes have... weird ordering requirements. in 3.10 bch_writeback_add still needs to arguments. Stefan Am 12.07.2013 10:38, schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: > Does not seem to build: > CC [M] drivers/md/bcache/request.o > drivers/md/bcache/request.c: In function =91request_write=92: > drivers/md/bcache/request.c:1057: error: too few arguments to functio= n > =91bch_writeback_add=92 > make[3]: *** [drivers/md/bcache/request.o] Error 1 > make[2]: *** [drivers/md/bcache] Error 2 >=20 > Am 12.07.2013 10:31, schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: >> Am 12.07.2013 10:19, schrieb Kent Overstreet: >>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 08:11:45AM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost= AG wrote: >>>> Am 12.07.2013 03:40, schrieb Kent Overstreet: >>>>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 01:45:42PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profiho= st AG wrote: >>>>>> fix is this one: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=3DLBFJRvEt >>>>> >>>>> Oh I see, the patch that introduced this is an old version of the= patch >>>>> - the bcache-for-3.11 had this fixed, and I forgot to update that >>>>> branch. Thanks, I'll apply it there. >>>> >>>> thanks - which commit id is the fix in? i can't find it. >>> >>> The patch that introduced it wasn't ever destined for 3.10 anyways,= and >>> I just deleted the bcache/bcache-3.9 branches because they'd gotten= out >>> of sync and weren't getting updated with bcache-dev/bcache-for-3.11= =2E >> >> Thanks! >> >>> So just stick with bcache-for-3.10, I just backported all the impor= tant >>> bugfixes to it - I'll be sending that stuff to Greg K-H for 3.10.1 = in >>> the next couple days too. >> Thanks! >> >> Stefan >>