Re: Vinum breakage (was: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch)

Greg Lehey wrote: > Technical explanation: A buffer header gets corrupted between the > time the top half of the driver issues the request to the disk > driver, and when the I/O completes. Currently, the evidence is > pointing towards the disk driver, but the corruption is of such an > u

Re: Vinum breakage (was: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Lehey writes: >> >> The problem in vinum/releng4 is the problem greg has been blaming >> on CAM since at least FreeBSDcon and indications seems to be that >> it is actually a malloc/free gottcha in vinum. > >No, this is not correct. The problem you're talking

Vinum breakage (was: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch)

On Tuesday, 4 April 2000 at 15:33:43 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Brad Knowles writes: >> At 8:23 AM +0200 2000/4/4, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: >> >>> Like I said in another mail, this is CURRENT, things are >>> expected to br

Vinum breakage (was: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch)

On Tuesday, 4 April 2000 at 15:31:00 +0200, Søren Schmidt wrote: > It seems Brad Knowles wrote: >> >> Like I said in a previous message, Poul broke vinum (among other >> things) under 4.0-STABLE, and this needs to be fixed ASAP. If Poul >> had kept his changes unique to -CURRENT, then 4.0-S

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

> Like I said in a previous message, Poul broke vinum (among other > things) under 4.0-STABLE, and this needs to be fixed ASAP. If Poul I'd actually consider it a really good idea if you could back this up since I have not seen anything to suggest that phk's changes have affected 4.0-STA

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:14:40AM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > Ehm. Not as if your VM stuff wasn't causing disruption. Needed, > granted, but disruptive as well. And ucd-snmp has been broken quite > some time (still is?) due to the work. > And I know of a lot of people who actively

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

At 3:33 PM +0200 2000/4/4, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > I have not made one single commit to 4.0-STABLE which even comes > close to vinum. My apologies. I must have misread/misremembered what was being said with regards to the commits breaking vinum, and somehow gotten that crossed wi

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

In message , Brad Knowles writes: >At 8:23 AM +0200 2000/4/4, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > >> Like I said in another mail, this is CURRENT, things are >> expected to break. You want stability of API's, go 3-STABLE. You want >> a somewhat stab

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

It seems Brad Knowles wrote: > > Like I said in a previous message, Poul broke vinum (among other > things) under 4.0-STABLE, and this needs to be fixed ASAP. If Poul > had kept his changes unique to -CURRENT, then 4.0-STABLE wouldn't > have been affected. But he didn't, and it was. W

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

At 8:23 AM +0200 2000/4/4, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > Like I said in another mail, this is CURRENT, things are > expected to break. You want stability of API's, go 3-STABLE. You want > a somewhat stable environment, go 4-STABLE. 5 is bleeding edge, have > your bandages ready.

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

At 8:14 AM +0200 2000/4/4, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > Besides, CURRENT does allow for the tree to be broken. I guess Bleeding > Edge lost its meaning within the FreeBSD ranks. Yes, but RELENG_4 is no longer -CURRENT. Therefore, different procedures need to be applied to it, now

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

-On [2404 04:01], Adrian Chadd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >This really isn't constructive. I haven't looked at the patchset that >phk has posted up but I think it'd be more useful if people gave >comments about the changes and their usefulness rather than the bickering >going on now. Agreed.

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

-On [2404 04:02], Matthew Dillon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >: >:* His timing did suck >:* He's now doing the right thing, at least, instead of committing the >: second patchset without submitting them for peer review > >I disagree. What Poul is doing is committing stuff first, then tryi

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

-On [2403 20:05], Matthew Dillon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >:When I mailed arch@ about this change I got no response from anybody >:but Bruce. >: >:I talked to Kirk about it in Malmø and got his approval. >: >:This is not unplanned. >: >:This is also not untested, I have two complete protot

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

: :* His timing did suck :* He's now doing the right thing, at least, instead of committing the : second patchset without submitting them for peer review I disagree. What Poul is doing is committing stuff first, then trying to get validation after the fact (and in a rather demanding way

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > : > : > :Matt, > : > :When I mailed arch@ about this change I got no response from anybody > :but Bruce. > : > :I talked to Kirk about it in Malmø and got his approval. > : > :This is not unplanned. > : > :This is also not untested, I have two compl

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

: : :Matt, : :When I mailed arch@ about this change I got no response from anybody :but Bruce. : :I talked to Kirk about it in Malmø and got his approval. : :This is not unplanned. : :This is also not untested, I have two complete prototypes behind me. : :It is regretable that vinum was broken, a

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

Matt, When I mailed arch@ about this change I got no response from anybody but Bruce. I talked to Kirk about it in Malmø and got his approval. This is not unplanned. This is also not untested, I have two complete prototypes behind me. It is regretable that vinum was broken, and I hope that i

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

:>Ripping up the buffer cache right smack in the middle of Greg trying :>to debug a serious vinum/bio problem is atrocious timing. : :Actually, it is the other way around, Greg finally started to look for :the bug in vinum in the middle of my commits. : :How dare he do that ? : ::-) : :--

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes: > >: http://phk.freebsd.dk/misc >: >:I belive the patch is now fundamentally ready for commit, I'm running >:it here myself, and the delta in kernel warnings have been analyzed >:and deemed mostly harmless. >: >:Some componenents are stil

Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

: http://phk.freebsd.dk/misc : :I belive the patch is now fundamentally ready for commit, I'm running :it here myself, and the delta in kernel warnings have been analyzed :and deemed mostly harmless. : :Some componenents are still not converted and use a cast from bio to :buf, prominently v

2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch

http://phk.freebsd.dk/misc I belive the patch is now fundamentally ready for commit, I'm running it here myself, and the delta in kernel warnings have been analyzed and deemed mostly harmless. Some componenents are still not converted and use a cast from bio to buf, prominently vinum an