On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 12:59:39PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > I really don't like the entire scheme, to be honest. BTW, what happens > if you try to add the same device to the same array after having it kicked > out? If that comes before your delayed kobject_del(), the things will > get nasty since sysfs will (rightfully) refuse to add another entry with > the same name and parent while the old one is still there and for all > sysfs knows is going to stay there... More fun questions: what are the locking requirements for ->resize()? You are calling it with no exclusion whatsoever... What about bind_rdev_to_array()? At the very least, you want to protect mddev->disks, and AFAICS new_dev_store() has no exclusion at all. And I suspect that you have other things in there in need of protection (finding free desc_nr, for one); can all of those be handled by simple spinlocks? - 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
