On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 12:01:13PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >> Maybe I'll add how I understand what's going on:
> >>
> >> GEOM calls destroy_dev() while holding the topology lock.
> >>
> >>
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>> Maybe I'll add how I understand what's going on:
>>
>> GEOM calls destroy_dev() while holding the topology lock.
>>
>> Destroy_dev() wants to destroy device, but can't because there are
>> threads t
On Monday 01 February 2010 10:23:34 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > Maybe I'll add how I understand what's going on:
> >
> > GEOM calls destroy_dev() while holding the topology lock.
> >
> > Destroy_dev() wants to destroy device,
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> Maybe I'll add how I understand what's going on:
>
> GEOM calls destroy_dev() while holding the topology lock.
>
> Destroy_dev() wants to destroy device, but can't because there are
> threads that still have it open.
>
> The
Hi all,
* Kostik Belousov wrote:
> My exemplary case has been snp(4) before tty got rewritten, see r. 1.107
> of sys/dev/snp/snp.c. No calls to destroy_dev_sched() that I placed in
> the src/ a kept around, that is good because corresponding subsystems
> got serious rewrite.
The current TTY code
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 08:51:27PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> >>> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeat
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
>>> case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opene
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:44:51PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlo
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
> > case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
> >
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
> case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
> disappear at exactly same time. In my case, at time of unplugging SATA
> Port Mul
Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
>> case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
>> disappear at exactly same time. In my case, at time
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
> case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
> disappear at exactly same time. In my case, at time of unplugging SATA
> Port Mul
Hi.
Experimenting with SATA hot-plug I've found quite repeatable deadlock
case. Problem observed when several SATA devices, opened via devfs,
disappear at exactly same time. In my case, at time of unplugging SATA
Port Multiplier with several disks beyond it. All I have to do is to run
several `dd
13 matches
Mail list logo
