2012-06-08 12:31:42

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: [patch -resend] drbd: fix resync_dump_detail() output

The tests here aren't correct. It should be doing a shift before doing
the bitwise AND. (bme->flags & BME_NO_WRITES) is always false and
(bme->flags & BME_LOCKED) checks for BME_NO_WRITES instead of checking
for locked.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
I sent this to the drbd-user list in March, but never recieved a
response.

diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
index 2959cdf..ffe1ee4 100644
--- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
+++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
@@ -187,8 +187,10 @@ static void resync_dump_detail(struct seq_file *seq, struct lc_element *e)
struct bm_extent *bme = lc_entry(e, struct bm_extent, lce);

seq_printf(seq, "%5d %s %s\n", bme->rs_left,
- bme->flags & BME_NO_WRITES ? "NO_WRITES" : "---------",
- bme->flags & BME_LOCKED ? "LOCKED" : "------"
+ test_bit(BME_NO_WRITES, &bme->flags) ?
+ "NO_WRITES" : "---------",
+ test_bit(BME_LOCKED, &bme->flags) ?
+ "LOCKED" : "------"
);
}

2012-06-08 18:57:04

by Lars Ellenberg

Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] [patch -resend] drbd: fix resync_dump_detail() output

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:31:28PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The tests here aren't correct. It should be doing a shift before doing
> the bitwise AND. (bme->flags & BME_NO_WRITES) is always false and
> (bme->flags & BME_LOCKED) checks for BME_NO_WRITES instead of checking
> for locked.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>

Ack.

> ---
> I sent this to the drbd-user list in March, but never recieved a
> response.

Sorry, seems to have been lost :-(

Lars

> diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
> index 2959cdf..ffe1ee4 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
> @@ -187,8 +187,10 @@ static void resync_dump_detail(struct seq_file *seq, struct lc_element *e)
> struct bm_extent *bme = lc_entry(e, struct bm_extent, lce);
>
> seq_printf(seq, "%5d %s %s\n", bme->rs_left,
> - bme->flags & BME_NO_WRITES ? "NO_WRITES" : "---------",
> - bme->flags & BME_LOCKED ? "LOCKED" : "------"
> + test_bit(BME_NO_WRITES, &bme->flags) ?
> + "NO_WRITES" : "---------",
> + test_bit(BME_LOCKED, &bme->flags) ?
> + "LOCKED" : "------"
> );
> }

--
: Lars Ellenberg
: LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
: DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com

2014-02-17 19:43:53

by Dan Carpenter

Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] [patch -resend] drbd: fix resync_dump_detail() output

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 08:50:08PM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:31:28PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The tests here aren't correct. It should be doing a shift before doing
> > the bitwise AND. (bme->flags & BME_NO_WRITES) is always false and
> > (bme->flags & BME_LOCKED) checks for BME_NO_WRITES instead of checking
> > for locked.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>
> Ack.
>
> > ---
> > I sent this to the drbd-user list in March, but never recieved a
> > response.
>
> Sorry, seems to have been lost :-(
>

Still lost in 2014. :P Who is supposed to take this patch? I assume
it's someone on the drbd list?

regards,
dan carpenter

> Lars
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
> > index 2959cdf..ffe1ee4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_proc.c
> > @@ -187,8 +187,10 @@ static void resync_dump_detail(struct seq_file *seq, struct lc_element *e)
> > struct bm_extent *bme = lc_entry(e, struct bm_extent, lce);
> >
> > seq_printf(seq, "%5d %s %s\n", bme->rs_left,
> > - bme->flags & BME_NO_WRITES ? "NO_WRITES" : "---------",
> > - bme->flags & BME_LOCKED ? "LOCKED" : "------"
> > + test_bit(BME_NO_WRITES, &bme->flags) ?
> > + "NO_WRITES" : "---------",
> > + test_bit(BME_LOCKED, &bme->flags) ?
> > + "LOCKED" : "------"
> > );
> > }
>
> --
> : Lars Ellenberg
> : LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
> : DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com