Hi
This patch of Jens Axboe was missing from 2.5.44-ac4. Was this by design
or accidental?
> Irk you are on SCSI, yes you need this incremental patch for that to
> work. Sorry about that, I've put up 16b which contains this.
--- drivers/block/scsi_ioctl.c~ 2002-10-25 16:46:58.000000000 +0200
+++ drivers/block/scsi_ioctl.c 2002-10-25 16:47:32.000000000 +0200
@@ -319,6 +319,8 @@
case CDROMEJECT:
rq = blk_get_request(q, WRITE, __GFP_WAIT);
rq->flags = REQ_BLOCK_PC;
+ rq->rq_dev = to_kdev_t(bdev->bd_dev);
+ rq->rq_disk = bdev->bd_disk;
rq->data = NULL;
rq->data_len = 0;
rq->timeout = BLK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
> --
> Jens Axboe
--
/__
\_|\/
/\
On Sun, Oct 27 2002, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> Hi
>
> This patch of Jens Axboe was missing from 2.5.44-ac4. Was this by design
> or accidental?
Please check blk_do_rq(), it sets rq_dev and rq_disk. So it's indeed
intentional. Since you ask, do you have problems ejecting?
--
Jens Axboe
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:15:07AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27 2002, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This patch of Jens Axboe was missing from 2.5.44-ac4. Was this by design
> > or accidental?
>
> Please check blk_do_rq(), it sets rq_dev and rq_disk. So it's indeed
> intentional. Since you ask, do you have problems ejecting?
Yup.
I can only see rq -> rq_dev being set in sg_io(), but then again, you could write the
amount of C I know on a small postage stamp. ^_^
recompiled with the two assignments in under CDROMEJECT it works fine.
Thanks
--
/__
\_|\/
/\
On Mon, Oct 28 2002, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:15:07AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27 2002, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > This patch of Jens Axboe was missing from 2.5.44-ac4. Was this by design
> > > or accidental?
> >
> > Please check blk_do_rq(), it sets rq_dev and rq_disk. So it's indeed
> > intentional. Since you ask, do you have problems ejecting?
>
> Yup.
>
> I can only see rq -> rq_dev being set in sg_io(), but then again, you
> could write the amount of C I know on a small postage stamp. ^_^
>
> recompiled with the two assignments in under CDROMEJECT it works fine.
I just checked the -ac4 patch, and bits are indeed missing. The
recommended patch against -ac4 is:
--- drivers/block/scsi_ioctl.c~ 2002-10-25 19:00:11.000000000 +0200
+++ drivers/block/scsi_ioctl.c 2002-10-25 19:01:15.000000000 +0200
@@ -37,11 +37,14 @@
#define BLK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT (60 * HZ)
-int blk_do_rq(request_queue_t *q, struct request *rq)
+int blk_do_rq(request_queue_t *q, struct block_device *bdev, struct request *rq)
{
DECLARE_COMPLETION(wait);
int err = 0;
+ rq->rq_dev = to_kdev_t(bdev->bd_dev);
+ rq->rq_disk = bdev->bd_disk;
+
/*
* we need an extra reference to the request, so we can look at
* it after io completion
@@ -221,9 +224,6 @@
if (writing)
rq->flags |= REQ_RW;
- rq->rq_dev = to_kdev_t(bdev->bd_dev);
- rq->rq_disk = bdev->bd_disk;
-
rq->hard_nr_sectors = rq->nr_sectors = nr_sectors;
rq->hard_cur_sectors = rq->current_nr_sectors = nr_sectors;
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@
* return -EIO if we didn't transfer all data, caller can look at
* residual count to find out how much did succeed
*/
- err = blk_do_rq(q, rq);
+ err = blk_do_rq(q, bdev, rq);
if (rq->data_len > 0)
err = -EIO;
@@ -325,7 +325,7 @@
memset(rq->cmd, 0, sizeof(rq->cmd));
rq->cmd[0] = GPCMD_START_STOP_UNIT;
rq->cmd[4] = 0x02 + (close != 0);
- err = blk_do_rq(q, rq);
+ err = blk_do_rq(q, bdev, rq);
blk_put_request(rq);
break;
default:
I think Alan dropped this last bit (or maybe it didn't apply for him,
dunno), at least I know it was sent.
--
Jens Axboe
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:57:54AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28 2002, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:15:07AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 27 2002, Nyk Tarr wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > This patch of Jens Axboe was missing from 2.5.44-ac4. Was this by design
> > > > or accidental?
> > >
> > > Please check blk_do_rq(), it sets rq_dev and rq_disk. So it's indeed
> > > intentional. Since you ask, do you have problems ejecting?
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > I can only see rq -> rq_dev being set in sg_io(), but then again, you
> > could write the amount of C I know on a small postage stamp. ^_^
> >
> > recompiled with the two assignments in under CDROMEJECT it works fine.
>
> I just checked the -ac4 patch, and bits are indeed missing. The
> recommended patch against -ac4 is:
>
[snip]
>
> I think Alan dropped this last bit (or maybe it didn't apply for him,
> dunno), at least I know it was sent.
Applies clean here. I'll try it later.
Thanks.
Nyk
--
/__
\_|\/
/\