On Mon, 6 May 2013 14:58:31 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> There are many other possibilities for other codepaths that end up in > >> wait_for_response(). Once we get a solution in place for NFS, we'll > >> need to do something very similar for CIFS. > > > > Makes sense, I will add CIFS to the patch. Would you prefer it in the > > same or separate patches. > > Quite frankly, is it worth resurrecting these patches at all? > > The only things it actually complained about are not worth the pain > fixing and are getting explicitly not warned about - is there any > reason to believe the patches are worth maintaining and the extra > complexity is worth it? > > Linus Well, these problems are worth the pain of fixing, I think. It's just going to take us a while to get there since it involves some significant surgery. As to whether the warnings themselves are worthwhile now that we're excluding the most egregious offenders from them, I don't much care either way. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
