On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:56:08AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Bart, Ming: > > can you guys please work a little better together? We've now got two > patchsets that are getting very similar. > > Bart, please at least CC Ming when you send out the patches. > > Ming - instead of sending a separate series right after Bart a > differential series would be nice. This also applies the other way > around if Ming is the first after a while. Hi Chritoph, Could you take a look at my yesterday's post V8? Which should address all previous issues? Except for Tejun's comment about document __percpu_ref_tryget_live() a bit, and I will do it in V9. I have commented on Bart's patchset before, but my comments never gets addressed: 1) no MD changes required on this issue 2) RCU read lock is missed in fast path 3) bad patch title: - such as : 'scsi-mq: Reduce suspend latency' this is very misleading since it is actually bug fix - such as : "Make SCSI device suspend and resume work reliably" also a bit not accurate Also holding sdev->state_mutex before freezing queue might cause deadlock since this lock can be acquired in eh handler( scsi_eh_offline_sdevs()) -- Ming
