[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:0.022 / U:30.496 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site