From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Dake Subject: Re: raid1 critical sections not protected in 2.4.x? Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:29:30 -0700 Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1066080570.4761.233.camel@persist.az.mvista.com> References: <1065721318.4761.138.camel@persist.az.mvista.com> <20031010081445.GC29059@marowsky-bree.de> Reply-To: sdake@mvista.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20031010081445.GC29059@marowsky-bree.de> To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Could you provide a pointer to those md locking fixes? Thanks! -steve On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 01:14, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2003-10-09T10:41:59, > Steven Dake said: >=20 > > I have been looking at the raid1.c code. There is a kernel thread > > raid1d that could be scheduled on processor A. Then on processor B= , > > other raid code could be scheduled as per each block I/O request. >=20 > Did you follow the recent locking fixes to md I discussed with Neil? = I > think this fixes some of these; at least we have a confirmation from = IBM > that some raid1 races (not resyncing after a hotadd, no progress duri= ng > resync etc) went away with it. >=20 >=20 > Sincerely, > Lars Marowsky-Br=C3=A9e - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html