On May 16, 2012, at 7:50 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:06:14 -0500 Jonathan Brassow <jbrassow@xxxxxxxxxx>
I've been seeing some really bad panics take place on dm-raid.c. I've
found that it is because the mddev->safemode_timer is firing after the
mddev structure has been freed. I've attached a patch to fix the
problem below, but I have some questions (outlined in the patch header).
I also have a debugging patch that prints something during each of the
suspend stages and when md_write_end resets the timer so that you can
see the problem in action - let me know if you want that patch also.
thanks for the patch. It looks simple and can clearly fix a problem
so at this point in the cycle I propose to submit it to Linus as-is, even
though I'm not convinced it is perfect, and you didn't give me a s-o-b line.
See more blow.
No Signed-off-by: line? why is that.
"Signed-off-by" *only* means "I certify that I have any necessary right to
submit this patch, and I agree to it being used in the way that all other
code in this project can be used" - only with more words. See the Developer's
Certificate of Origin 1.1
Refusing to add a Signed-off-by: because you don't think the code is "ready"
yet in some sense is just plain wrong. I never ever want to even see a patch
that doesn't have Signed-off-by, because I don't know if I've been given
permission to use it.
Certainly add an 'RFC-by' if you want to say something about the quality of
the patch, but don't for that reason exclude the signed-off-by
"RFC-by" must be some overly clever thing I thought up or saw at one point. i can certainly break that habit. I had seen that possibly setting 'mddev->safemode = 2' might be a possible solution. I was also a bit confused if I should pull the 'del_timer_sync' from 'md_stop_writes'. This is why I put the RFC in there, but I see your meaning.