Re: [RFC] fix our current target reap infrastructure.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 21:44 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > No, I was thinking of the two thread scan bug (i.e. two scan threads)
> > not one scan and one remove, which is a bug in the old code.  This is a
> > race between put and get when the kref is incremented from zero (an
> > illegal operation which triggers a warn on).
> > 
> > The way to mediate this is to check for the kref already being zero
> > condition, like below.
> 
> Yes, that seems reasonable.  Consider now: Having done this, to what
> extent do starget->reap_ref and starget->state really need to be
> protected by the host_lock?  Maybe only the linked lists require
> protection.  (I haven't checked.)

Yes, I think so, but that can be done as an enhancement patch after the
fact.

> Can you post a single, combined patch incorporating all your proposed
> changes?  It's little hard to review them in pieces...

Sure, I'll repost what I have.

> Alan Stern
> 
> P.S.: Would you agree that the phrase "pretty astonishing cockup" did
> indeed turn out to be appropriate?  :-)

Objection, m'lud, my learned friend is leading the witness ...

James



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux