On Tuesday April 25, qiyong@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:13:49PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > On Tuesday April 25, qiyong@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Reduce the raid6_end_write_request() spinlock window. > > > > Andrew: please don't include these in -mm. This one and the > > corresponding raid5 are wrong, and I'm not sure yet the unplug_device > > changes. > > I am sure with the unplug_device. Just look follow the path... > What path? There are probably several. If I follow the path, will I see the same things as you see? Who knows, because you haven't bothered to tell us what you see. > > Yes. Let's fix the error(). In any case, the current code is broken. (see raid5/6_end_read_request) What will I see in raidX_end_read_request. Surely it isn't that hard to write a few more sentences? > Comments? Thanks. conf->working_disks isn't atomic_t and so decrementing without a spinlock isn't safe. So lets just leave it all inside a spinlock. Also I have a vague memory that clearing In_sync before Faulty is important, but I'm not certain of that. Remember: the code is there for a reason. It might not be a good reason, and the code could well be wrong. But it would be worth your effort trying to find out what the reason is before blithely changing it (as I discovered recently with a change I suggested to invalidate_mapping_pages). NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
