On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 08:08 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2011-09-27 22:10, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 18:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> But if you forward the actual patch to me (the one I see on lkml seems > >>>> to be broken and doesn't compile cleanly because it's assiging a > >>>> structure to a pointer), I'll try it out anyway. > >>> > >>> Thanks, that would be great. It's inlined below. > >> > >> Well, I did several USB eject events, and nothing bad happened. > >> > >> But as mentioned, I don't think that means much. Have you tried this > >> with slub debugging and poisoning? It might be worth some extra > >> testing that way. > > > > I've been testing a simpler version: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131300594629839 > > > > For a long time now with great success. The only difference is the > > locking cleanup, but SCSI doesn't need that since it doesn't supply its > > own lock, so I've been voting for this as the final fix for a while now. > > The locking cleanup looks good, though, for devices that do use the > embedded lock. Exactly ... it's the missing piece; without it my patch is really only addressing SCSI. > But functionally they should be the same for SCSI, so if > you had great success with it, then that's a good data point. Right, I've run it through the memory debugger and USB ejection testing (with ext2, which seems to be the fs that triggers this problem the most). James -- 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
