On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 12:24 -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 06/24/2013 10:38 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:49 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >> scsi_run_queue() examines all SCSI devices that are present on
> >> the starved list. Since scsi_run_queue() unlocks the SCSI h
On 06/24/2013 10:38 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:49 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> scsi_run_queue() examines all SCSI devices that are present on
>> the starved list. Since scsi_run_queue() unlocks the SCSI host
>> lock before running a queue a SCSI device can get removed
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 18:16 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 06/24/13 17:38, James Bottomley wrote:
> > I really don't like this because it's shuffling potentially fragile
> > lifetime rules since you now have to have the sdev deleted from the
> > starved list before final put. That becomes an u
On 06/24/13 17:38, James Bottomley wrote:
I really don't like this because it's shuffling potentially fragile
lifetime rules since you now have to have the sdev deleted from the
starved list before final put. That becomes an unstated assumption
within the code.
The theory is that the starved li
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:49 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> scsi_run_queue() examines all SCSI devices that are present on
> the starved list. Since scsi_run_queue() unlocks the SCSI host
> lock before running a queue a SCSI device can get removed after
> it has been removed from the starved list a
scsi_run_queue() examines all SCSI devices that are present on
the starved list. Since scsi_run_queue() unlocks the SCSI host
lock before running a queue a SCSI device can get removed after
it has been removed from the starved list and before its queue
is run. Protect against that race condition by
6 matches
Mail list logo
