On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:42:32PM -0700, manish wrote:So, does it imply that we cannot remove the io_request_lock in 2.4 at all?
Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
On Tuesday 27 May 2003 22:20, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:We made a change in the 2.4.20 kernel to remove the io_request_lock and replace with the host_lock and the queue_lock. Probably, not a right thing to do
Hi Andrea,
funny. I asked him the same ;)1. Stock 2.4.20sorry if it's a dumb question but what is the "io_request_lock removed"
2. 2.4.20 with the io_request_lock removed.
The tests on the first one are still going. The tests on the second one
showed processes getting stuck for long times (> 5 minutes) and not
paused ...
thing? Hope you didn't delete any io_request_lock, if you did you can
get worse things than crashes (i.e. mm/fs corruption). the pausing bug
was a genuine race (quite innocent, if you could trigger a disk unplug
you could recover from it)
Andrea
see his response:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
what is this io_request_lock patch you are talking about?We made some changes to the 2.4.20 kernel to remove the io_request_lock and replace with queue_lock and host_lock.
ciao, Marc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ciao, Marc
right you are, but never mind, only remeber e2fsck the fs before
booting the box so you don't risk fs corruption later with the solid
kernels.
Andrea