Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:48:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:48:53 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:11153 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:48:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3DE3D1D1.BE5B30ED@digeo.com> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:56:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.46 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Srihari Vijayaraghavan , Jens Axboe , Neil Brown CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.49: kernel BUG at drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c:1950! References: <200211262203.20088.harisri@bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Nov 2002 19:56:02.0333 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8FB44D0:01C29585] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 938 Lines: 28 Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote: > > [1.] One line summary of the problem: > kernel BUG at drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c:1950! That's BIO_BUG_ON(!bio->bi_size); > Software RAID 0. Yes, there have been a few reports of this. The pagecache code does bio_add_page() against a new BIO and it doesn't work. We end up submitting an empty BIO and boom. I've seen various RAID patches floating about which address this, but either they weren't merged or they didn't work right. Jens, what is the policy here? Should bio_add_page() for an empty bio "always succeed"? (Bearing in mind that pages can be 64k...). I guess -EIO would be better than a BUG. Are there more RAID fixes pending? Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/