Be sure to not destroy device twice. This is not possible in theory, but
with this change there is even no theoretical race. MFC after: 2 weeks
This commit is contained in:
parent
25bcdd36e4
commit
18486a5ee3
@ -602,12 +602,10 @@ g_raid3_destroy_device(struct g_raid3_softc *sc)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
callout_drain(&sc->sc_callout);
|
||||
gp->softc = NULL;
|
||||
cp = LIST_FIRST(&sc->sc_sync.ds_geom->consumer);
|
||||
g_topology_lock();
|
||||
if (cp != NULL)
|
||||
g_raid3_disconnect_consumer(sc, cp);
|
||||
sc->sc_sync.ds_geom->softc = NULL;
|
||||
g_wither_geom(sc->sc_sync.ds_geom, ENXIO);
|
||||
G_RAID3_DEBUG(0, "Device %s destroyed.", gp->name);
|
||||
g_wither_geom(gp, ENXIO);
|
||||
@ -1876,6 +1874,8 @@ g_raid3_can_destroy(struct g_raid3_softc *sc)
|
||||
|
||||
g_topology_assert();
|
||||
gp = sc->sc_geom;
|
||||
if (gp->softc == NULL)
|
||||
return (1);
|
||||
LIST_FOREACH(cp, &gp->consumer, consumer) {
|
||||
if (g_raid3_is_busy(sc, cp))
|
||||
return (0);
|
||||
@ -1909,6 +1909,8 @@ g_raid3_try_destroy(struct g_raid3_softc *sc)
|
||||
g_topology_unlock();
|
||||
return (0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
sc->sc_geom->softc = NULL;
|
||||
sc->sc_sync.ds_geom->softc = NULL;
|
||||
if ((sc->sc_flags & G_RAID3_DEVICE_FLAG_WAIT) != 0) {
|
||||
g_topology_unlock();
|
||||
G_RAID3_DEBUG(4, "%s: Waking up %p.", __func__,
|
||||
@ -3112,6 +3114,15 @@ g_raid3_destroy(struct g_raid3_softc *sc, int how)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
g_topology_lock();
|
||||
if (sc->sc_geom->softc == NULL) {
|
||||
g_topology_unlock();
|
||||
return (0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
sc->sc_geom->softc = NULL;
|
||||
sc->sc_sync.ds_geom->softc = NULL;
|
||||
g_topology_unlock();
|
||||
|
||||
sc->sc_flags |= G_RAID3_DEVICE_FLAG_DESTROY;
|
||||
sc->sc_flags |= G_RAID3_DEVICE_FLAG_WAIT;
|
||||
G_RAID3_DEBUG(4, "%s: Waking up %p.", __func__, sc);
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user