On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Rusty, > Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either, but as > per the following commit, I think we still need use lock for safety. What's > your opinion? > > commit 4034cc68157bfa0b6622efe368488d3d3e20f4e6 > Author: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> > Date: Sat Feb 21 11:04:45 2009 +0900 > > [SCSI] sd: revive sd_index_lock > > Commit f27bac2761cab5a2e212dea602d22457a9aa6943 which converted sd to > use ida instead of idr incorrectly removed sd_index_lock around id > allocation and free. idr/ida do have internal locks but they protect > their free object lists not the allocation itself. The caller is > responsible for that. This missing synchronization led to the same id > being assigned to multiple devices leading to oops.
I'm confused. Tejun, Greg, anyone can probes happen in parallel? If so, I'll have to review all my drivers. Thanks, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
