On Tue, Nov 22 2011 at 4:45pm -0500, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: block: initialize request_queue's numa node during allocation > > > > Set request_queue's node in blk_alloc_queue_node() rather than > > blk_init_allocated_queue_node(). This avoids blk_throtl_init() using > > q->node before it is initialized. > > > > Rename blk_init_allocated_queue_node() to blk_init_allocated_queue(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> > > When I debug an issue and suggest a patch to fix it in addition to > suggesting the possible cleanup for blk_init_allocated_queue_node(), I > don't expect that you'll just take it and claim it as your own, sheesh. Sorry I pissed you off. But I'm not that hard up for credit. I was just looking to make sure proper _code_ changes occurred ;) I didn't take enough time to fully appreciate the long road you've travelled on this. Jens, I'll defer to David to post a proper patch header. David please claim the patch and its contents as your own in v2. But feel free to add my Signed-off-by. Thanks, Mike -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>