Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:36:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:35:45 -0500 Received: from gw.chygwyn.com ([62.172.158.50]:24592 "EHLO gw.chygwyn.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:35:42 -0500 From: Steven Whitehouse Message-Id: <200204041412.PAA17697@gw.chygwyn.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5.8-pre1] nbd compile fixes... To: davej@suse.de (Dave Jones) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:12:27 +0100 (BST) Cc: stelian.pop@fr.alcove.com (Stelian Pop), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel Mailing List), pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz In-Reply-To: <20020404162844.Z20040@suse.de> from "Dave Jones" at Apr 04, 2002 04:28:44 PM Organization: ChyGywn Limited X-RegisteredOffice: 7, New Yatt Road, Witney, Oxfordshire. OX28 1NU England X-RegisteredNumber: 03887683 Reply-To: Steve Whitehouse X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:50:25PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > > 2.4 simply does a s/queue_lock/tx_lock/ on drivers/block/nbd.c > > > I'll push that to Linus later today > > Not quite. They cover different things. The queue_lock originally covered the > > queue and the request sending function. There was an obscure deadlock which > > could occur in this case hence the split to a spin lock to cover the queue > > and a semaphore to cover only the request sending function (hence tx_lock > > rather than queue lock). > > *nod* I wussed out and just took the easy bits when I forward ported > those changes from 2.4 > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/linux-2.5_drivers_block_nbd.c.diff > > I dropped the actual fix because it was incompatible with the bio > changes iirc. > That was my conclusion too. Since its now possible to mark requests REQ_STARTED my current 2.5 patch does that (and leaves requests on the request queue) rather than maintaining a separate internal queue like the 2.4 version does, but its fairly similar other than that. > > I've got a 2.5 version of that patch on my patches page at the moment, but > > due to the block layer changes (if I've understood them correctly) the > > fix should be done in a slightly different way. The reason that I've not > > submitted the patch for 2.5 is that it doesn't yet work and I've not had > > a chance to investigate properly yet (it hangs on writes sometimes). I'm > > sure its probably something silly that I've done but I just don't see it > > at the moment. Any hints or clues are welcome :-) > > URL ? > Sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier: http://www.chygwyn.com/~steve/kpatch/nbd-2.5.7-deadlock.diff Steve. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/