[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 1/2] raid6_end_write_request() spinlock fix
On Tuesday April 25, wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:13:49PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Tuesday April 25, wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Reduce the raid6_end_write_request() spinlock window.
> >
> > Andrew: please don't include these in -mm. This one and the
> > corresponding raid5 are wrong, and I'm not sure yet the unplug_device
> > changes.
> I am sure with the unplug_device. Just look follow the path...

What path? There are probably several. If I follow the path, will I
see the same things as you see? Who knows, because you haven't
bothered to tell us what you see.

> Yes. Let's fix the error(). In any case, the current code is broken. (see raid5/6_end_read_request)

What will I see in raidX_end_read_request. Surely it isn't that hard
to write a few more sentences?

> Comments? Thanks.

conf->working_disks isn't atomic_t and so decrementing without a
spinlock isn't safe. So lets just leave it all inside a spinlock.

Also I have a vague memory that clearing In_sync before Faulty is
important, but I'm not certain of that.

Remember: the code is there for a reason. It might not be a good
reason, and the code could well be wrong. But it would be worth your
effort trying to find out what the reason is before blithely changing
it (as I discovered recently with a change I suggested to

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-25 08:53    [W:0.043 / U:46.808 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site