Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:23:49 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freebsd.org>, mj@feral.com, Ed Maste <emaste@sandvine.com> Subject: Re: How is supposed to be protected the units list? Message-ID: <3bbf2fe11003200523t60895bfv1fa73d04e58a7838@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B9A91DA.7030107@FreeBSD.org> References: <3bbf2fe11002281655i61a5f0a0if3f381ad0c4a1ef8@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe11003031532u2207eb55h19c3a045215a7d84@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EF336.80107@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003031547kd5f7314t3d83b2bde06c1c2f@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EF990.5030407@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003031607wa3727b5ke89bc2a909d4d6a6@mail.gmail.com> <4B901419.8060800@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003041737p30690522ya81e1b8f4bd6bbf9@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe11003120601y3c403a1ct50f9fc6c1f0903bf@mail.gmail.com> <4B9A91DA.7030107@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/3/12 Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>: > Attilio Rao wrote: >> 2010/3/5 Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: >>> 2010/3/4 Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com>: >>>> The referred to patch at least got me out of panic case :-).. >>>> >>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~mjacob/scsi_da.c.patch >>> Yes, honestly the main intent of this patch is to offer a stable >>> ground for correct handling of periph. When looking about refcounting >>> them correctly, the main problem is that there was no initial >>> condition assuring safety, and the initial patch should address this, >>> but I'm sure there are places where periph refcount is not handled >>> correctly and this may be one. >> >> So, as long as it seems nobody had a strong argument against this >> patch, what do you think about me committing it? >> We can further refine later if we think it is the case. >> >> Also, I think that Matt's patch should be committed just after this >> one (and possibly we should investigate a similar add-on for the ata >> counterpart too?). > > I have already told my opinion, that second lock may be not needed. I > would like to think a bit more about both patches after getting back > from the conference. Thanks, So I made this new patch using the bus lock: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/Sandvine/pdrv/xpt_lock.diff I would have preferred to have a dedicated lock for the units lists, but as long as you seem having strong opionion, I'm fine with it. Maybe Matt wants to add his refcounting modifies using this scheme if we came to a consensous? Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe11003200523t60895bfv1fa73d04e58a7838>