From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar  3 21:49:56 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 2F0C4106566C
	for <freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org>; Wed,  3 Mar 2010 21:49:56 +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 061EE8FC15
	for <freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org>; Wed,  3 Mar 2010 21:49:55 +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 o23LnsOM023564
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:49:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mj@feral.com)
Message-ID: <4B8ED982.6010108@feral.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:49:54 -0800
From: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com>
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: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
References: <3bbf2fe11002281655i61a5f0a0if3f381ad0c4a1ef8@mail.gmail.com>	
	<3bbf2fe11003020724m14bebf74y9fa3906418b7cf11@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4B8D3016.2070301@feral.com>
	<3bbf2fe11003031334g4591c1a3lc52dfb898f728ee2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe11003031334g4591c1a3lc52dfb898f728ee2@mail.gmail.com>
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]);
	Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org
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 <freebsd-scsi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-scsi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-scsi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-scsi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-scsi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-scsi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:49:56 -0000

On 03/03/2010 01:34 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2010/3/2 Matthew Jacob<mj@feral.com>:
>    
>> I will admit to not looking at this stuff closely. But I'll also test with
>> this today and give back an opinion.
>> I would really like to hear Scott, Ken, Alexander or Justin express an
>> opinion on this.
>>      
> So I stress-tested the patch for several hours (6-7) with a
> stress-test that could reproduce the bug for us, on a debugging
> kernel, and it didn't panic'ed or showed LORs, deadlock, etc.
>
> If someone could offer time for reviews or futher examinations it
> would be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Attilio
>
>
>    
I didn't get a chance to look at it more- work intervened.

Have you tested with FC or SAS with drives arriving/departing a lot?