On Sun, 2017-01-15 at 11:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:13 AM, James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Can we compromise on "try not to revert a fix ...".
>
> No.
>
> It's about timing, and about how serious the regression is.
>
> For example, if this happened in rc7, I would have reverted
> immediately. No questions asked.
>
> In this case, the "fix" was was also much less important then the
> problem it caused. Some specialized pass-through command not working
> right, vs a machine not even booting? There's just no question
> what-so-ever.
>
> So the "fix" you claim just wasn't nearly important enough. It was
> also pretty recent and clearly things had worked for _years_ without
> it.
>
> In fact, I'm still somewhat inclined to revert it, just to have a
> working rc4 release later today. But I'm hoping maybe Ingo has time
> to test things (although I suspect he's already asleep).
OK, so the patch to revert would actually be
commit 669f044170d8933c3d66d231b69ea97cb8447338
Author: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Nov 22 16:17:13 2016 -0800
scsi: srp_transport: Move queuecommand() wait code to SCSI core
Because that change in the wait code broke the "fix" in mpt3sas.
Before that was applied, it actually worked even though I think it's a
wrong fix.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
