On 01/28/15 22:45, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 10:23 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> Is this the latest version of this patch that is available ? I have
>> tried to test the above patch. However, I couldn't test the impact of
>> this patch on the SRP initiator driver since my te
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 10:23 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 01/23/15 19:42, James Bottomley wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> > index 08c90a7..31ba254 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> > @@ -965,6 +965,15 @@ int scsi_report_opc
On 01/23/15 19:42, James Bottomley wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> index 08c90a7..31ba254 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi.c
> @@ -965,6 +965,15 @@ int scsi_report_opcode(struct scsi_device *sdev,
> unsigned char *buffer,
> }
> EXPORT
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:42:47AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> To that point, Rusty's patch just keeps the status quo in the new
> module_refcount() environment, so it's the quick bandaid.
>
> I think the use case you're worrying about is what happens if someone
> tries to use a device after m
James Bottomley writes:
> On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 05:17 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:24:15PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> > The correct fix is to turn try_module_get() into __module_get(), and
>> > always do the module_put().
>>
>> Is this really safe? __module_g
On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 05:17 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:24:15PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > The correct fix is to turn try_module_get() into __module_get(), and
> > always do the module_put().
>
> Is this really safe? __module_get sais it needs a non-zero refc
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:24:15PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> The correct fix is to turn try_module_get() into __module_get(), and
> always do the module_put().
Is this really safe? __module_get sais it needs a non-zero refcount
to start with, but scsi_device_get is the only thing every increm
James Bottomley writes:
> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 08:50 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> We'll also still need to change scsi_device_put to deal with
>> a negative refcount..
>
> I don't believe so ... we never call module_refcount() now, and the
> actual module ref count never goes negative. Tha
On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 08:50 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:23:35AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 11:15 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > James Bottomley writes:
> > > > On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 16:21 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > >> Masami H
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:23:35AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 11:15 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > James Bottomley writes:
> > > On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 16:21 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > >> Masami Hiramatsu writes:
> > >> > (2015/01/19 1:55), James Bottomley wrote:
>
James Bottomley writes:
> Actually, I don't think this is enough. Some Australian once came up
> with a guide to APIs, and lectured on it at length, one of which was
> that the name should be the obvious use and it is unexpected that a
> refcount would go negative. I think we could raise it from
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 11:15 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> James Bottomley writes:
> > On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 16:21 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> Masami Hiramatsu writes:
> >> > (2015/01/19 1:55), James Bottomley wrote:
> >> >> From: James Bottomley
> >> >>
> >> >> After e513cc1 module: Remove
(2015/01/20 9:45), Rusty Russell wrote:
> James Bottomley writes:
>> On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 16:21 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Masami Hiramatsu writes:
(2015/01/19 1:55), James Bottomley wrote:
> From: James Bottomley
>
> After e513cc1 module: Remove stop_machine from module u
James Bottomley writes:
> On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 16:21 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Masami Hiramatsu writes:
>> > (2015/01/19 1:55), James Bottomley wrote:
>> >> From: James Bottomley
>> >>
>> >> After e513cc1 module: Remove stop_machine from module unloading,
>> >> module_refcount() is return
On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 16:21 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Masami Hiramatsu writes:
> > (2015/01/19 1:55), James Bottomley wrote:
> >> From: James Bottomley
> >>
> >> After e513cc1 module: Remove stop_machine from module unloading,
> >> module_refcount() is returning (unsigned long)-1 when called
On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 00:28 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > The first one I think should be eliminated, and the second one is simply
> > an assertion before calling module_put() (which should probably be
> > eliminated). The othe
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:21:15PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> The first one I think should be eliminated, and the second one is simply
> an assertion before calling module_put() (which should probably be
> eliminated). The others are just printing information.
FYI, I've got a pathcset to elimi
Masami Hiramatsu writes:
> (2015/01/19 1:55), James Bottomley wrote:
>> From: James Bottomley
>>
>> After e513cc1 module: Remove stop_machine from module unloading,
>> module_refcount() is returning (unsigned long)-1 when called from within
>> a routine that runs in module_exit. This is confusi
(2015/01/19 1:55), James Bottomley wrote:
> From: James Bottomley
>
> After e513cc1 module: Remove stop_machine from module unloading,
> module_refcount() is returning (unsigned long)-1 when called from within
> a routine that runs in module_exit. This is confusing the scsi device
> put code whi
James Bottomley writes:
> From: James Bottomley
>
> After e513cc1 module: Remove stop_machine from module unloading,
> module_refcount() is returning (unsigned long)-1 when called from within
> a routine that runs in module_exit. This is confusing the scsi device
> put code which is coded to det
From: James Bottomley
After e513cc1 module: Remove stop_machine from module unloading,
module_refcount() is returning (unsigned long)-1 when called from within
a routine that runs in module_exit. This is confusing the scsi device
put code which is coded to detect a module_refcount() of zero for
21 matches
Mail list logo
