From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EKedv-00055D-6W for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:18:51 -0700 Received: from lakshmi.addtoit.com ([198.99.130.6] helo=lakshmi.solana.com) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1EKedu-0005eC-G6 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:18:50 -0700 From: Jeff Dike Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Review needed for ubd fixes Message-ID: <20050928155405.GA12888@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <200509172245.j8HMjqJD009056@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200509222251.31918.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <20050927181218.GA28937@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <200509281414.32622.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509281414.32622.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:54:05 -0400 To: Blaisorblade Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Bodo Stroesser On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 02:14:32PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > Very, very nice. > > What about the early removal of the request from the queue, before being sure > we can complete it (sorry for not reading carefully everything below, I'm > going to have lunch and afterwards back to study). I think that doesn't matter too much. I have to get the sg information out of it, and store that, plus the current position within the sg array if we couldn't send it all to the host. So, I don't refer to the request after I get the sg information out of it, so I might as well remove it from the queue. > Reorder o_direct at the end - no time to read them yet, but guess that more > intrusive goes at the end. And I'm not sure whether merging o_direct so late > in 2.6.14 is nice (even if you've tested the full patch set, and without > o_direct the thing makes less sense). Yeah, I wasn't planning on sending that for 2.6.14. It was just part of that set of patches. > Let's hope for the better, but next time the debug should be done *before* > merging, ok? Even because, for instance, if (say) the patch was ready for > 2.6.14 and merged into 2.6.15, I could have released a test tree against > 2.6.14 (maybe I could do this now). I thought I did. AIO had been in my tree forever with no apparent problems. I recently started running 24 hour/day stress tests on UML, and that turned up some problems. People turning on spinlock debugging turned up the sleeping while atomic problem. And me staring at the code as a result of that turned up the possible deadlock. > Please, send them to Andrew for -mm, and say "2.6.14 can't go without them, > but they might need further review". > > And ask Jens Axboe if it can give a look to them (this time it's less > necessary, since there are less dirty tricks). Yeah. This still needs some work. I need to deal with the bitmap array properly. Jeff ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel