Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:12:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc: freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: {da,sa,...}open bug?
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211251210351.83036-100000@root.org>
In-Reply-To: <20021125230811.K56791-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > While preparing the fix, I noticed an additional couple of oddities. > > First, files under sys/cam/scsi are inconsistent as to the order of > > calling cam_periph_release() and cam_periph_unlock(): Some of them > > will call cam_periph_release() first, and the others will call it second. > > Then, there's a number of places in the code where cam_periph_unlock() > > won't be called before return on a cam_periph_acquire() error, though > > the "periph" has been locked. > > I'd like this fixed too. I still have some patches written about 4 > years ago for a couple of these reversals. I think things should be > unlocked or released in the reverse of the order in which they were > locked or acquired, if possible. > > BTW, are the locks still necessary? I think the locking in the disk > mini-layer should be sufficent if it isn't already. But it seems to be > broken (it times out after 1 second). I am not sure the lock is still needed, but rather than optimize the existing cam setup, I'd rather continue work on the next version. I consider cam in maintenance mode which means bugfixes but not updates where things aren't broken. -Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211251210351.83036-100000>