Messages in this thread | | | From | Steven Whitehouse <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.5.8-pre1] nbd compile fixes... | Date | Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:12:27 +0100 (BST) |
| |
Hi,
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:50:25PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > > 2.4 simply does a s/queue_lock/tx_lock/ on drivers/block/nbd.c > > > I'll push that to Linus later today > > Not quite. They cover different things. The queue_lock originally covered the > > queue and the request sending function. There was an obscure deadlock which > > could occur in this case hence the split to a spin lock to cover the queue > > and a semaphore to cover only the request sending function (hence tx_lock > > rather than queue lock). > > *nod* I wussed out and just took the easy bits when I forward ported > those changes from 2.4 > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/linux-2.5_drivers_block_nbd.c.diff > > I dropped the actual fix because it was incompatible with the bio > changes iirc. > That was my conclusion too. Since its now possible to mark requests REQ_STARTED my current 2.5 patch does that (and leaves requests on the request queue) rather than maintaining a separate internal queue like the 2.4 version does, but its fairly similar other than that.
> > I've got a 2.5 version of that patch on my patches page at the moment, but > > due to the block layer changes (if I've understood them correctly) the > > fix should be done in a slightly different way. The reason that I've not > > submitted the patch for 2.5 is that it doesn't yet work and I've not had > > a chance to investigate properly yet (it hangs on writes sometimes). I'm > > sure its probably something silly that I've done but I just don't see it > > at the moment. Any hints or clues are welcome :-) > > URL ? > Sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier: http://www.chygwyn.com/~steve/kpatch/nbd-2.5.7-deadlock.diff
Steve. - 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/
| |