On Tuesday April 25, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:13:49PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Tuesday April 25, [email protected] 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
invalidate_mapping_pages).
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
