On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 02 2000, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > This is wrong -- if the buffer is not queued because we are out of
> > > free request slots, it has still already been locked at this point
> > > (and _Req).
> >
> > if (!req) {
> > if (rw_ahead)
> > goto end_io;
> > req = __get_request_wait(max_req, bh->b_rdev);
> > }
> >
> > In case we fail to find a free request, bh->b_end_io is called, and
> > it unlocks the buffer.
>
> Ah yes, I was comparing to a similar case in 2.4. The buffer is still
> marked BH_Req though, and thus counted as busy. Have you thoroughly
> tested this change in 2.2 and made sure it didn't cause any ext2
> corruption? I saw some scary stuff in 2.4
Not very hardly. I've run some dbench's and thats all.
I'll test hardly tomorrow.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST