Re: [OOPS] 2.6.11 - NMI lockup with CFQ scheduler

James Bottomley
2005-04-07T13:40:15Z

On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 15:32 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I think Christophs point is that why add sdev_lock as a pointer, instead
> of just killing it? It's only used in one location, so it's not really
> that confusing (and a comment could fix that).

Because any use of sdev->request_queue->queue_lock would likely succeed
even after we've freed the device and released the queue. If it's a
pointer and we null it after free and release, then any later use will
trigger an immediate NULL deref oops.

Since we've had so many nasty problems around refcounting, I just would
like to assure myself that we're doing everything correctly (I really
believe we are, but empirical evidence is also nice).

James