Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:49:54 -0800 From: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How is supposed to be protected the units list? Message-ID: <4B8ED982.6010108@feral.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe11003031334g4591c1a3lc52dfb898f728ee2@mail.gmail.com> References: <3bbf2fe11002281655i61a5f0a0if3f381ad0c4a1ef8@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe11003020724m14bebf74y9fa3906418b7cf11@mail.gmail.com> <4B8D3016.2070301@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003031334g4591c1a3lc52dfb898f728ee2@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/03/2010 01:34 PM, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2010/3/2 Matthew Jacob<mj@feral.com>: > >> I will admit to not looking at this stuff closely. But I'll also test with >> this today and give back an opinion. >> I would really like to hear Scott, Ken, Alexander or Justin express an >> opinion on this. >> > So I stress-tested the patch for several hours (6-7) with a > stress-test that could reproduce the bug for us, on a debugging > kernel, and it didn't panic'ed or showed LORs, deadlock, etc. > > If someone could offer time for reviews or futher examinations it > would be very much appreciated. > > Thanks, > Attilio > > > I didn't get a chance to look at it more- work intervened. Have you tested with FC or SAS with drives arriving/departing a lot?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B8ED982.6010108>