On Sun, 7 July 2013 01:24:44 +0800, vaughan wrote:
>
> Do you agree that I use a per device spin_lock 'sfd_lock' to protect
> sfds list and leave sg_index_lock
> only protect the global sg device lookup? I think it's reasonable
> for concurrency.
That bit looks fine to me. I don't think it
On Sun, 7 July 2013 01:24:44 +0800, vaughan wrote:
Do you agree that I use a per device spin_lock 'sfd_lock' to protect
sfds list and leave sg_index_lock
only protect the global sg device lookup? I think it's reasonable
for concurrency.
That bit looks fine to me. I don't think it matters
On 07/06/2013 01:39 AM, Jörn Engel wrote:
Sorry about replying so late.
On Mon, 17 June 2013 21:10:53 +0800, vaughan wrote:
Rewrite the last patch.
Add a new field 'toopen' in sg_device to count ongoing sg_open's. By checking
both 'toopen' and 'exclude' marks when do exclusive open, old race
On 07/06/2013 01:39 AM, Jörn Engel wrote:
Sorry about replying so late.
On Mon, 17 June 2013 21:10:53 +0800, vaughan wrote:
Rewrite the last patch.
Add a new field 'toopen' in sg_device to count ongoing sg_open's. By checking
both 'toopen' and 'exclude' marks when do exclusive open, old race
Sorry about replying so late.
On Mon, 17 June 2013 21:10:53 +0800, vaughan wrote:
>
> Rewrite the last patch.
> Add a new field 'toopen' in sg_device to count ongoing sg_open's. By checking
> both 'toopen' and 'exclude' marks when do exclusive open, old race conditions
> can be avoided.
>
Sorry about replying so late.
On Mon, 17 June 2013 21:10:53 +0800, vaughan wrote:
Rewrite the last patch.
Add a new field 'toopen' in sg_device to count ongoing sg_open's. By checking
both 'toopen' and 'exclude' marks when do exclusive open, old race conditions
can be avoided.
Replace
On 06/26/2013 09:37 AM, vaughan wrote:
Hi Jörn Engel,
Ping.
How about this one? I found my lat patch hasn't fix the issue, so I
modified it a little more. Last thread is:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sg: atomize check and set sdp->exclude in sg_open
Message-ID: <20130605154106.ga2...@logfs.org>
On 06/26/2013 09:37 AM, vaughan wrote:
Hi Jörn Engel,
Ping.
How about this one? I found my lat patch hasn't fix the issue, so I
modified it a little more. Last thread is:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sg: atomize check and set sdp-exclude in sg_open
Message-ID: 20130605154106.ga2...@logfs.org
Regards,
Hi Jörn Engel,
Ping.
How about this one? I found my lat patch hasn't fix the issue, so I
modified it a little more. Last thread is:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sg: atomize check and set sdp->exclude in sg_open
Message-ID: <20130605154106.ga2...@logfs.org>
Regards,
Vaughan
于 2013年06月17日 21:10, vaughan
Hi Jörn Engel,
Ping.
How about this one? I found my lat patch hasn't fix the issue, so I
modified it a little more. Last thread is:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sg: atomize check and set sdp-exclude in sg_open
Message-ID: 20130605154106.ga2...@logfs.org
Regards,
Vaughan
于 2013年06月17日 21:10, vaughan 写道:
Rewrite the last patch.
Add a new field 'toopen' in sg_device to count ongoing sg_open's. By checking
both 'toopen' and 'exclude' marks when do exclusive open, old race conditions
can be avoided.
Replace global sg_open_exclusive_lock with a per device lock - sfd_lock. Since
sfds list is now
Rewrite the last patch.
Add a new field 'toopen' in sg_device to count ongoing sg_open's. By checking
both 'toopen' and 'exclude' marks when do exclusive open, old race conditions
can be avoided.
Replace global sg_open_exclusive_lock with a per device lock - sfd_lock. Since
sfds list is now
12 matches
Mail list logo
