Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 02:37:23 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: mj@feral.com Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How is supposed to be protected the units list? Message-ID: <3bbf2fe11003041737p30690522ya81e1b8f4bd6bbf9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B901419.8060800@feral.com> References: <3bbf2fe11002281655i61a5f0a0if3f381ad0c4a1ef8@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EDAE8.3080401@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003031357o518d6028m8157d9110a9122f3@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EF128.8050704@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003031532u2207eb55h19c3a045215a7d84@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EF336.80107@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003031547kd5f7314t3d83b2bde06c1c2f@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EF990.5030407@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003031607wa3727b5ke89bc2a909d4d6a6@mail.gmail.com> <4B901419.8060800@feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/3/4 Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com>: > The referred to patch at least got me out of panic case :-).. > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~mjacob/scsi_da.c.patch Yes, honestly the main intent of this patch is to offer a stable ground for correct handling of periph. When looking about refcounting them correctly, the main problem is that there was no initial condition assuring safety, and the initial patch should address this, but I'm sure there are places where periph refcount is not handled correctly and this may be one. Thanks, Attilio PS: Sorry for late responses since now, but I'm mostly away. -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe11003041737p30690522ya81e1b8f4bd6bbf9>