tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: swap-on-raidframe vs raidctl -P

[Manuel Bouyer]

> If we had a way to say "there won't be any more I/O anyway so cleanup
> any raid devices (and others that need cleanup) and close them", it'd
> solve them all.

Except there *can* be more I/O, such as by raidframe marking components

[Greg Oster]

> I think something like this has been proposed before:

>  while(!done) {
>      foreach mounted filesystem
>        - attempt to unmount each
>      foreach configured device
>        - attempt to unconfigure each unused (unopened) device
>      if (no mounted filesystems and no configured drives)
>        - we're done
>  }

> but it's probably not enough to deal with really 'loopy' cases
> either..

That's why my earlier suggestion (which amounted to basically this,
except driven off registered callbacks instead of filesystems and
devices, and therefore usable by other things) of iterated shutdown
functions had a "not making further progress" exit clause as well as a
"done" exit cluase.  (Indeed, the former is the only exit clause it
needs, since, if there's nothing left to shut down, no further progress
can be made. :)

/~\ The ASCII                           der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML     
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index