On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:51:04AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:00:53PM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote: > > ... > > Just to summarize, we only queue the POWEROFF due to surprise link down > > and another POWERON due to link becoming back up. The transient link-down > > events are coveniently ignored. > > I'm leery about ignoring events, though it happens to be convenient in > this case. I think we're ignoring them because we're running work > items simultaneously with other items, and I think that concurrency is > unnecessary complexity. > > I think it would be safer to queue every event and process every event > serially. Hi Ashok, Just a ping to make sure we're not deadlocked. I'm waiting for you, so I hope you're not also waiting for me :) I'm not trying to rush you; I just don't want to drop this by mistake. Bjorn
