[Drbd-dev] [PATCH] drbd: Fix kernel_sendmsg() usage
richard at nod.at
Wed Nov 9 16:47:15 CET 2016
On 09.11.2016 16:32, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:04AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> This should go into 4.9,
>>>> and into all stable branches since and including v4.0,
>>>> which is the first to contain the exposing change.
>>>> It is correct for all stable branches older than that as well
>>>> (which contain the DRBD driver; which is 2.6.33 and up).
>>>> It requires a small "conflict" resolution for v4.4 and earlier, with v4.5
>>>> we dropped the comment block immediately preceding the kernel_sendmsg().
>>>> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
>>>> Cc: viro at zeniv.linux.org.uk
>>>> Cc: christoph.lechleitner at iteg.at
>>>> Cc: wolfgang.glas at iteg.at
>>>> Reported-by: Christoph Lechleitner <christoph.lechleitner at iteg.at>
>>>> Tested-by: Christoph Lechleitner <christoph.lechleitner at iteg.at>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard at nod.at>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg at linbit.com>
>>> Changing my patch is perfectly fine, but please clearly state it.
>>> I.e. by adding something like that before your S-o-b.
>>> [Lars: Massaged patch to match my personal taste...]
>> Lars, are you sending a new one? If you do, add the stable tag as well.
> So my "change" against his original patch was
> - rv = kernel_sendmsg(sock, &msg, &iov, 1, size - sent);
> + rv = kernel_sendmsg(sock, &msg, &iov, 1, iov.iov_len);
> to make it "more obviously correct" from looking just at the one line
> without even having to read the context. And a more verbose commit message.
> If that requires yet additional noise, sure, so be it :)
> Should I sent two patches, one that applies to 4.5 and later,
> and one that applies to 2.6.33 ... 4.4, or are you or stable
> willing to resolve the trivial "missing comment block" conflict yourself?
BTW: Why did you drop the "Fixes:" tag too?
More information about the drbd-dev