Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 05:48:15 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Tai-hwa Liang <avatar@mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Jiawei Ye <leafy7382@gmail.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: destroy_dev_sched() KPI in the tree Message-ID: <20070708024815.GK2200@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <07070809441413.59322@www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw> References: <20070703180141.GJ2200@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <E1I6SAN-0000by-Bt@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <20070705144443.GV2200@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <c21e92e20707070536x6c8053c0l7ecad5a5bfa6de15@mail.gmail.com> <20070707160042.GJ2200@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <07070809441413.59322@www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:47:41AM +0800, Tai-hwa Liang wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 08:36:23PM +0800, Jiawei Ye wrote:
> >>On 7/5/07, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Today, I reverted the part of commit that tried to transform
> >>>destroy_dev()
> >>>from d_close() into destroy_dev_sched(). See kern_conf.c, rev. 1.208.
> >>>You shall call destroy_dev_sched() explicitely.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Does this mean that mount_smbfs has to explicitly call it now? It is
> >>currently stuck in the devdrn state with the latest kernel :(
> >>
> >>Jiawei Ye
> >Exactly. Patch by Tai-hwa Liang is pending. I also remember that sg(4)
>
> I'll ask for re@'s approval tomorrow. Hopefully the new KPI would have
> more exposure before my patch is committed.
>
> >had the same problem, but I do not know it current status.
>
> Though it was reviewed before destroy_dev_sched() KPI enters to the tree,
> I'd be appreciate it if you can reviewed the attached patch again.
So, this is still the problem for scsi_targ ?
It probably make sense to postpone free of softc until all threads
finished using it. You may use destroy_dev_sched_cb() to run the
function after the device is actually destroyed. It would just call
free().
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Tai-hwa Liang
> --- cam/scsi/scsi_target.c.orig Wed May 2 11:42:46 2007
> +++ cam/scsi/scsi_target.c Wed May 2 11:43:11 2007
> @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ targclose(struct cdev *dev, int flag, in
> softc = (struct targ_softc *)dev->si_drv1;
> if ((softc->periph == NULL) ||
> (softc->state & TARG_STATE_LUN_ENABLED) == 0) {
> - destroy_dev(dev);
> + destroy_dev_sched(dev);
> FREE(softc, M_TARG);
> return (0);
> }
> @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ targclose(struct cdev *dev, int flag, in
> cam_periph_invalidate(softc->periph);
> softc->periph = NULL;
> }
> - destroy_dev(dev);
> + destroy_dev_sched(dev);
> FREE(softc, M_TARG);
> }
> cam_periph_unlock(periph);
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGkFBuC3+MBN1Mb4gRAqP3AKC2kvzmi5lrEM+BeO/z/5Nb47oW3QCg9KyY
q5VX0+uqTTImA6IaXzninaU=
=jlIc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070708024815.GK2200>