On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 06:14:23PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > My main concern is being able to verify the locking. I think that is > much easier if the locking is adjacent to the method invocation. But > if you just add a comment at the method invocation about where the > locking is, that should be sufficient. Ok. I can add comments for all the methods as a separate patch, similar to Documentation/vfs/Locking > > Yes, I mentioned this earlier, and I also vaguely remember we got > > bug reports from IBM on power for this a while ago. I just don't > > feel confident enough to touch all these without a good test plan. > > Hmmm. I see your point, but I hate leaving a known bug unfixed. I > wonder if some enterprising soul could tickle this bug by injecting > errors while removing and rescanning devices below the bridge? I'm completely loaded up at the moment, but this sounds like a good idea. In the meantime how do you want to proceed with this patch?
