On 02/22/2017 09:13 AM, Scott Bauer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:10:31AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 02/22/2017 12:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>> + if (!lock_held) >>>> + mutex_lock(&dev->dev_lock); >>> >>> No conditional locking, please. I guess I causesd this by asking you >>> to remove __opal_lock_unlock, but it seems we'd either need to keep it >>> in the end. >>> >>> Except for that the series looks fine to me. >>> >>> Jens: given that 1-3 are the important fixes how about you pick those >>> up ASAP? They all also had my Reviewed-by for previous postings. >> >> I picked up 1-3, and re-added your reviewed by. #4 should be sorted >> before -rc1, though. >> > > #4 Is good to go as well. It was resent this morning under > [PATCH] block/sed: Embed function data into the function sequence > And contains the changes Christoph requested, I'll re-add my sign-off. > Once that gets In I can rebase mine and get them out today too. I see, I found it now. Guys, let's get this process streamlined a bit more. This whole thing has been a flurry of patches and patchseries, posted by either you or Jon. Previous patch series was 1-4 patches posted by you, and then patch #4 is replaced by a single patch from Jon, posted outside of that thread. Honestly, I feel like this should have been pushed to 4.12 instead, it clearly wasn't ready before the merge window. -- Jens Axboe
