From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 19 18:03:34 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3395016A41F
	for <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:03:34 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FD043D5D
	for <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:03:33 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0267BC84;
	Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:03:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: Szalai Andras <andrew@djw.hu>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:53:10 +0200."
	<20051019175310.GC76081@web.djw.hu> 
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:03:27 +0200
Message-ID: <5675.1129745007@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: geom orphan question 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations
	<freebsd-geom.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-geom>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:03:34 -0000

In message <20051019175310.GC76081@web.djw.hu>, Szalai Andras writes:

>I have spent few hours trying to understand geom. The I/O
>path is more or less okay, but I have problems with
>the orphanization procedure.
>
>For example, if you look into g_concat.c there is a 
>g_concat_orphan function that calls g_concat_remove_disk.
>In this function, gconcat
>
>1) orphans its own provider (g_orphan_provider),
>2) reset access counts (g_access), 
>3) detach consumer from the lower layer provider,
>4) destroy the consumer.
>
>In order to detach the consumer (step 3) you have to be sure 
>that there are no active requests (bios) between the consumer and
>provider. My question is how can I guarantee that there are 
>no active bios when I call g_detach?

There are counters in consumers and providers which can tell
you that.

The above code seems to play fast and loose with that aspect.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.