On Mon, Apr 25 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Monday 25 April 2005 12:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 24 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > @@ -1099,6 +1104,7 @@ static int prepare_request(struct reques
> > > if((rq_data_dir(req) == WRITE) && !dev->openflags.w){
> > > printk("Write attempted on readonly ubd device %s\n",
> > > disk->disk_name);
> > > + WARN_ON(1); /* This should be impossible now */
> > > end_request(req, 0);
> > > return(1);
> > > }
> >
> > I don't think that's a sound change. The WARN_ON() is strictly only
> > really useful for when you need the stack trace for something
> > interesting. As the io happens async, you will get a boring trace that
> > doesn't contain any valuable information.
> Ok, removed, and resending the patch, is the rest ok? I.e. is that
> supposed to work? I gave a walk around and it seemed that the code
> handles set_{disk,device}_ro() even during the open, but I'm no block
> layer expert.
I'd keep the checks for sanity. Although the set_disk/device_ro prevents
regular fs write mounts, a buggy layered drive could still send down a
write by accident.
--
Jens Axboe
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
