From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: Lou Langholtz <ldl@aros.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Steven Whitehouse <steve@chygwyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nbd driver for 2.5+: fix for module removal & new block device layer
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:55:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030621225500.GL6754@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EF4D2C8.6060608@aros.net>
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 03:48:56PM -0600, Lou Langholtz wrote:
> This patch prevents memory corruption from "rmmod nbd" with the existing
> 2.5.72 (and earlier) nbd driver. It does this by updating the nbd driver
> to the new block layer requirement that every disk has its own
> request_queue structure. This is the first of a series of patchlets
> designed to break down the essential changes I proposed in my last
> "enormous" patch. Note that another patchlet will make the whole
> allocation of per nbd_device memory be dynamic (rather than staticly
> tied to MAX_NBD). Please try out this patch and let me know how nbd is
> working for you before versus after. With any luck, some of these
> smaller patch breakdowns can actually see there way into new kernel
> releases. Thanks.
a) you don't have to have queue per device. It often does make
sense (for nbd it's almost certainly a win), but it's not required.
b) you definitely don't have to use separate queue locks. The
thing will work fine with spinlock being shared and I doubt that there
will be any noticable extra contention.
c) please, make allocation of queue dynamic _and_ separate from
any other allocated objects.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-21 22:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-21 21:48 Lou Langholtz
2003-06-21 22:55 ` viro [this message]
2003-06-21 23:16 ` Lou Langholtz
2003-06-22 10:03 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <20030621151818.081139fc.akpm@digeo.com>
2003-06-21 23:09 ` [PATCH] nbd driver 2.5+: fix for incorrect struct bio usage Lou Langholtz
2003-06-22 8:50 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030621225500.GL6754@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
--to=viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=ldl@aros.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=steve@chygwyn.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®