Re: Improving RAIDframe Parity Handling: The Diff

[Jed Davis <jld%panix.com@localhost>]

Matthias Scheler <tron%zhadum.org.uk@localhost> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 09:55:09PM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
>> I'm using your "netbsd-5" patch on my server since a few hours now
>> and the system works fine so far.
>
> I had to reboot the machine hard today because it hung (probably another
> instance of the rename race). The parity map code handle that without
> problems and the avoid multiple hours of parity rewrite.
>
>       Thanks a lot

So it sounds like everyone who's tested this patch wants me to commit
it.  It looks like all the issues raised here are better dealt with as
separate commits (being either nontrivial or "no functional change
intended"), so I'll commit the patch I posted (the -1103 one), after
giving a heads-up to current-users.

-- 
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l))))))  (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k)))))))    '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))