On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:18:19 -0400 Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 04/17/2019 11:13 AM, Halil Pasic wrote: > >>> Otherwise, looks good to me. Will queue when I get some ack/r-b. > >>> > >> I like it, but I feel weird giving an r-b to something I suggested: > >> > >> Acked-by: Eric Farman<farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > I think r-b is fine. You did verify both the design and the > > implementation I guess. So I don't see why not. > > > > How urgent is this. I could give this some love till the end of the > > week. Should I @Connie,@Farhan? > > Having more people review it is always a good thing :) > Hi Farhan, I was starring at this code for about an hour if not more and could not figure out the intentions/ideas behind it. That is not a fault of your patch, but I can't say that I understand neither the before nor the after. What understand this patch basically does is make us call cio_disable_subchannel() more often. That is what you point out in your commit message as well. But I fail to see how does this achieve what the summary line promises: 'Prevent quiesce function going into an infinite loop'. Sorry, I can't r-b this. Maybe you can help me gain an understanding of this code offline. I guess, the approval of the people who actually understand what it is going on (i.e. Connie and Eric) will have to suffice. Regards, Halil
