Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Re: Another blktap2-ish shutdown crash

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 07.06.10 at 13:12, Daniel Stodden <daniel.stodden@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 03:29 -0400, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 03.06.10 at 03:50, Daniel Stodden <daniel.stodden@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Why would you want blk_start_request() only after the blk_fs_request()
>> check, but not after the blk_barrier_rq() one?
> 
> Huh? But cases did get the blk_start_request call (?!)

I have to admit that I don't understand your response at all.

Assuming that you think my original question was rubbish, this is
the original (before your patch) code I look at

        while ((req = blk_peek_request(rq)) != NULL) {
                if (!blk_fs_request(req)) {
                        blk_end_request(req, -EIO, 0);
                        continue;
                }

                if (blk_barrier_rq(req)) {
                        blk_end_request(req, -EIO, 0);
                        continue;
                }
...
                blk_start_request(req);
...

Your patch inserts a call to blk_start_request() into the
first if clause's body, and I was asking why the second
one's wouldn't also need such a call.

Sorry if I'm being dense - I'll appreciate any enlightenment.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel