From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 13 00:41:50 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 CFA7C106566B for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:41:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emaste@freebsd.org) Received: from mail2.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D628FC0C for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com ([192.168.3.11]) by mail2.sandvine.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:41:49 -0500 Received: by labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com (Postfix, from userid 10332) id AF92411712; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:41:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:41:49 -0500 From: Ed Maste Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100313004149.GA94041@sandvine.com> References: <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> <4B9A93AC.9020000@feral.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B9A93AC.9020000@feral.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2010 00:41:49.0456 (UTC) FILETIME=[F782D900:01CAC245] 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 List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:41:50 -0000 On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:19:08AM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote: > 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. Right, the change is an improvement over the status quo; we were experiencing an easily reproducible panic from this issue that is solved by this change. We can always change it again if a more optimal soultion is proposed. Thanks, Ed