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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
