diff -u --recursive linux-2.5.1-preX/drivers/char/ftape/zftape/zftape-init.c linux-2.5.x/drivers/char/ftape/zftape/zftape-init.c
--- linux-2.5.1-preX/drivers/char/ftape/zftape/zftape-init.c Fri Nov 30 19:31:00 2001
+++ linux-2.5.x/drivers/char/ftape/zftape/zftape-init.c Fri Nov 30 19:47:19 2001
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@
TRACE_FUN(ft_t_flow);
TRACE(ft_t_flow, "called for minor %d", MINOR(ino->i_rdev));
- if ( test_and_set_bit(0,&busy_flag) )) {
+ if ( test_and_set_bit(0,&busy_flag) ) {
TRACE_ABORT(-EBUSY, ft_t_warn, "failed: already busy");
}
if ((MINOR(ino->i_rdev) & ~(ZFT_MINOR_OP_MASK | FTAPE_NO_REWIND))
diff -u --recursive linux-2.5.1-preX/drivers/isdn/divert/divert_procfs.c linux-2.5.x/drivers/isdn/divert/divert_procfs.c
--- linux-2.5.1-preX/drivers/isdn/divert/divert_procfs.c Fri Nov 30 19:31:02 2001
+++ linux-2.5.x/drivers/isdn/divert/divert_procfs.c Fri Nov 30 19:49:33 2001
@@ -58,7 +58,6 @@
else
divert_info_tail->next = ib; /* follows existing messages */
divert_info_tail = ib; /* new tail */
- restore_flags(flags);
/* delete old entrys */
while (divert_info_head->next) {
@@ -70,7 +69,7 @@
} else
break;
} /* divert_info_head->next */
- spin_lock_irqrestore( &divert_info_lock, flags );
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore( &divert_info_lock, flags );
wake_up_interruptible(&(rd_queue));
} /* put_info_buffer */
@@ -163,14 +162,13 @@
inf->usage_cnt--;
inf = inf->next;
}
- restore_flags(flags);
if (if_used <= 0)
while (divert_info_head) {
inf = divert_info_head;
divert_info_head = divert_info_head->next;
kfree(inf);
}
- spin_unlock_irq( &divert_info_lock, flags );
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore( &divert_info_lock, flags );
return (0);
} /* isdn_divert_close */
diff -u --recursive linux-2.5.1-preX/drivers/md/linear.c linux-2.5.x/drivers/md/linear.c
--- linux-2.5.1-preX/drivers/md/linear.c Sun Sep 30 21:26:06 2001
+++ linux-2.5.x/drivers/md/linear.c Wed Nov 28 21:18:02 2001
@@ -119,22 +119,21 @@
return 0;
}
-static int linear_make_request (mddev_t *mddev,
- int rw, struct buffer_head * bh)
+static int linear_make_request (mddev_t *mddev, int rw, struct bio *bio)
{
linear_conf_t *conf = mddev_to_conf(mddev);
struct linear_hash *hash;
dev_info_t *tmp_dev;
long block;
- block = bh->b_rsector >> 1;
+ block = bio->bi_sector >> 1;
hash = conf->hash_table + (block / conf->smallest->size);
if (block >= (hash->dev0->size + hash->dev0->offset)) {
if (!hash->dev1) {
printk ("linear_make_request : hash->dev1==NULL for block %ld\n",
block);
- buffer_IO_error(bh);
+ bio_io_error(bio);
return 0;
}
tmp_dev = hash->dev1;
@@ -144,11 +143,11 @@
if (block >= (tmp_dev->size + tmp_dev->offset)
|| block < tmp_dev->offset) {
printk ("linear_make_request: Block %ld out of bounds on dev %s size %ld offset %ld\n", block, kdevname(tmp_dev->dev), tmp_dev->size, tmp_dev->offset);
- buffer_IO_error(bh);
+ bio_io_error(bio);
return 0;
}
- bh->b_rdev = tmp_dev->dev;
- bh->b_rsector = bh->b_rsector - (tmp_dev->offset << 1);
+ bio->bi_dev = tmp_dev->dev;
+ bio->bi_sector = bio->bi_sector - (tmp_dev->offset << 1);
return 1;
}
diff -u --recursive linux-2.5.1-preX/drivers/md/raid0.c linux-2.5.x/drivers/md/raid0.c
--- linux-2.5.1-preX/drivers/md/raid0.c Sun Sep 30 21:26:06 2001
+++ linux-2.5.x/drivers/md/raid0.c Thu Nov 29 19:27:53 2001
@@ -223,8 +223,7 @@
* Of course, those facts may not be valid anymore (and surely won't...)
* Hey guys, there's some work out there ;-)
*/
-static int raid0_make_request (mddev_t *mddev,
- int rw, struct buffer_head * bh)
+static int raid0_make_request (mddev_t *mddev, int rw, struct bio *bio)
{
unsigned int sect_in_chunk, chunksize_bits, chunk_size;
raid0_conf_t *conf = mddev_to_conf(mddev);
@@ -235,11 +234,11 @@
chunk_size = mddev->param.chunk_size >> 10;
chunksize_bits = ffz(~chunk_size);
- block = bh->b_rsector >> 1;
+ block = bio->bi_sector >> 1;
hash = conf->hash_table + block / conf->smallest->size;
/* Sanity check */
- if (chunk_size < (block % chunk_size) + (bh->b_size >> 10))
+ if (chunk_size < (block % chunk_size) + (bio->bi_size >> 10))
goto bad_map;
if (!hash)
@@ -255,7 +254,7 @@
} else
zone = hash->zone0;
- sect_in_chunk = bh->b_rsector & ((chunk_size<<1) -1);
+ sect_in_chunk = bio->bi_sector & ((chunk_size<<1) -1);
chunk = (block - zone->zone_offset) / (zone->nb_dev << chunksize_bits);
tmp_dev = zone->dev[(block >> chunksize_bits) % zone->nb_dev];
rsect = (((chunk << chunksize_bits) + zone->dev_offset)<<1)
@@ -265,8 +264,8 @@
* The new BH_Lock semantics in ll_rw_blk.c guarantee that this
* is the only IO operation happening on this bh.
*/
- bh->b_rdev = tmp_dev->dev;
- bh->b_rsector = rsect;
+ bio->bi_dev = tmp_dev->dev;
+ bio->bi_sector = rsect;
/*
* Let the main block layer submit the IO and resolve recursion:
@@ -274,7 +273,7 @@
return 1;
bad_map:
- printk ("raid0_make_request bug: can't convert block across chunks or bigger than %dk %ld %d\n", chunk_size, bh->b_rsector, bh->b_size >> 10);
+ printk ("raid0_make_request bug: can't convert block across chunks or bigger than %dk %ld %d\n", chunk_size, bio->bi_sector, bio->bi_size >> 10);
goto outerr;
bad_hash:
printk("raid0_make_request bug: hash==NULL for block %ld\n", block);
@@ -285,7 +284,7 @@
bad_zone1:
printk ("raid0_make_request bug: hash->zone1==NULL for block %ld\n", block);
outerr:
- buffer_IO_error(bh);
+ bio_io_error(bio);
return 0;
}
On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> 3. Linear MD code
> 4. RAID-0 MD code
Have you verified that it works, or are these just compile fixes?
--
Jens Axboe
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
>
>> 3. Linear MD code
>> 4. RAID-0 MD code
>>
>
> Have you verified that it works, or are these just compile fixes?
>
>
They are just compile fixes. However, these are pretty simple conversions.
--
MvG,
Gertjan
----------
Gertjan van Wingerde
Geessinkweg 177
7544 TX Enschede
The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]
On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> >
> >> 3. Linear MD code
> >> 4. RAID-0 MD code
> >>
> >
> >Have you verified that it works, or are these just compile fixes?
> >
> >
>
> They are just compile fixes. However, these are pretty simple conversions.
Note that there is no straight conversion between before having a 1-1
mapping between a buffer_head and a data element and now potentially a
1-n mapping with bio. If you are just remapping, no problem.
So I'd rather not take these patches unless you've looked into why it
_does_ (or maybe does not) work. I'll make note to review them soon, ok?
--
Jens Axboe
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
>
>>Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. Linear MD code
>>>> 4. RAID-0 MD code
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Have you verified that it works, or are these just compile fixes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>They are just compile fixes. However, these are pretty simple conversions.
>>
>
> Note that there is no straight conversion between before having a 1-1
> mapping between a buffer_head and a data element and now potentially a
> 1-n mapping with bio. If you are just remapping, no problem.
>
> So I'd rather not take these patches unless you've looked into why it
> _does_ (or maybe does not) work. I'll make note to review them soon, ok?
>
>
Okay. BTW I'm currently setting up my machine to run some tests on this
code (I'll have to find some current version of raidtools first :-(.
--
MvG,
Gertjan
----------
Gertjan van Wingerde
Geessinkweg 177
7544 TX Enschede
The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]
On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> >Note that there is no straight conversion between before having a 1-1
> >mapping between a buffer_head and a data element and now potentially a
> >1-n mapping with bio. If you are just remapping, no problem.
> >
> >So I'd rather not take these patches unless you've looked into why it
> >_does_ (or maybe does not) work. I'll make note to review them soon, ok?
> >
> >
>
> Okay. BTW I'm currently setting up my machine to run some tests on this
> code (I'll have to find some current version of raidtools first :-(.
Excellent, thanks for doing this. We definitely need more people
starting to pick up the pieces.
--
Jens Axboe
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
>
>>>Note that there is no straight conversion between before having a 1-1
>>>mapping between a buffer_head and a data element and now potentially a
>>>1-n mapping with bio. If you are just remapping, no problem.
>>>
>>>So I'd rather not take these patches unless you've looked into why it
>>>_does_ (or maybe does not) work. I'll make note to review them soon, ok?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Okay. BTW I'm currently setting up my machine to run some tests on this
>>code (I'll have to find some current version of raidtools first :-(.
>>
>
> Excellent, thanks for doing this. We definitely need more people
> starting to pick up the pieces.
>
>
Jens,
I've tested the linear and RAID-0 code in my own environment. The code
survived some basic tests (starting, reading/writing, etc.) and some
heavy-duty read-write tests.
Based on these tests I'd say that the patches are fine.
--
MvG,
Gertjan
----------
Gertjan van Wingerde
Geessinkweg 177
7544 TX Enschede
The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]
On Fri, Nov 30 2001, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> I've tested the linear and RAID-0 code in my own environment. The code
> survived some basic tests (starting, reading/writing, etc.) and some
> heavy-duty read-write tests.
Excellent, thanks a lot. Applied.
--
Jens Axboe