From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 12 19:19:33 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E1A1065708 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:19:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2FF8FC1A for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.221.2] (remotevpn [192.168.221.2]) by ns1.feral.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2CJJB5d012150 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:19:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Message-ID: <4B9A93AC.9020000@feral.com> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:19:08 -0800 From: Matthew Jacob Organization: Feral Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org References: <3bbf2fe11002281655i61a5f0a0if3f381ad0c4a1ef8@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe11003031357o518d6028m8157d9110a9122f3@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EF128.8050704@feral.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> In-Reply-To: <4B9A91DA.7030107@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (ns1.feral.com [192.168.221.1]); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:19:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: How is supposed to be protected the units list? X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mj@feral.com List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:19:33 -0000 That's a fair comment. There is at least one case where this additional lock has helped. It probably needs rethinking a little later, but for now it does seem to help people. > 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, > >