James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:17 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112238726326927&w=2 On as542. The first hunk of the diff is already in (declare of scsi_host_set_state). The second hunk looks good (SHOST_RECOVERY label). The third hunk I will take in combination with the other patch that effects the scan code. This should have probably been another patch. > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112238771326644&w=2 Have not looked at this yet, but will look at it in combination to the above scan change. > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112238804301664&w=2 Do we need to revist how we are walking these lists for cleanup post James's kilst fix / update? > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112238825727146&w=2 This looks ok for an added check, but I guess I need to look at old mail and understand how we got here with the added scan mutex. > > I was hoping that Mike Anderson would review these, but since he hasn't > I'll take a look. Sorry asleep at the keyboard on these. Comments above if you have not already looked at them. -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@xxxxxxxxxx - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
