Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, James Bottomley wrote:
The root cause is a reordering of the devices caused by the async code.
That's NULL information.
OF COURSE the root cause is the async code. We know that. We're looking
for the specifics.
In particular, before that commit, at most you will wait for too _much_.
In other words, it's a "good" wait.
Your commit caused it to wait for less, and that then showed a bug. Not
all that surprising - it's now not waiting enough.
You tried to avoid a deadlock situation of waiting for too much, but you
avoided the deadlock by now waiting for too little.
I also think that your code is simply buggy. As far as I can tell, int he
case of having both running and pending events, you'll always pick the
pending cookie. But it's the _running_ cookie that has the lower event
number, isn't it?
I dunno. It all looks very fishy to me.
that's likely my screwup, not james'
the patch looks ok to me, it indeed should fix the problem.
(and is simpler than the idea I had around using min() )
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
