On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 12:01:13PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >> Maybe I'll add how I understand what's going on:
> >>
> >> GEOM calls destroy_dev() while holding the topology lock.
> >>
> >>
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>> Maybe I'll add how I understand what's going on:
>>
>> GEOM calls destroy_dev() while holding the topology lock.
>>
>> Destroy_dev() wants to destroy device, but can't because there are
>> threads t
On Monday 01 February 2010 10:23:34 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > Maybe I'll add how I understand what's going on:
> >
> > GEOM calls destroy_dev() while holding the topology lock.
> >
> > Destroy_dev() wants to destroy device,
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> Maybe I'll add how I understand what's going on:
>
> GEOM calls destroy_dev() while holding the topology lock.
>
> Destroy_dev() wants to destroy device, but can't because there are
> threads that still have it open.
>
> The
Hi all,
* Kostik Belousov wrote:
> My exemplary case has been snp(4) before tty got rewritten, see r. 1.107
> of sys/dev/snp/snp.c. No calls to destroy_dev_sched() that I placed in
> the src/ a kept around, that is good because corresponding subsystems
> got serious rewrite.
The current TTY code
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:51:27PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> >>> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeat
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
>>> case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opene
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlo
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
> > case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
> >
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
> case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
> disappear at exactly same time. In my case, at time of unplugging SATA
> Port Mul
Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
>> case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
>> disappear at exactly same time. In my case, at time
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
> case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
> disappear at exactly same time. In my case, at time of unplugging SATA
> Port Mul
12 matches
Mail list logo
