From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263815AbTDNSun (for ); Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:50:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263804AbTDNSum (for ); Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:50:42 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:32449 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263816AbTDNSuZ (for ); Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:50:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:02:06 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrew Morton , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.21-pre7 ide request races Message-ID: <20030414190206.GC9776@suse.de> References: <20030414093418.GQ9776@suse.de> <20030414030751.7bf17b04.akpm@digeo.com> <20030414101747.GR9776@suse.de> <20030414032339.27079dd8.akpm@digeo.com> <20030414102723.GS9776@suse.de> <20030414161508.GA1460@beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030414161508.GA1460@beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 14 2003, Mike Anderson wrote: > Jens Axboe [axboe@suse.de] wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 14 2003, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > > > > How would that solve the problem? The request could be gone even before > > > > end_that_request_last() is run, that is the issue. > > > > > > In that case I didn't understand your description of the bug even the tiniest > > > little bit. > > > > > > That request is sitting in the kernel stack of some process which is sleeping > > > in wait_for_completion(). Hence it is safe memory until someone runs > > > complete() against the completion struct. > > > > Sorry you are right, that should fix the problem as well! Your fix is > > probably the better one for 2.4, less intrusive. I'll kill the stack > > requests in 2.5 then. > > In 2.5 will you include the 2.4 end_that_request_last fix proposed in > this thread along with removal of requests on the stack? Yes of course. One is a good cleanup, the other prevents similar problems from other drivers. -- Jens Axboe