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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
