Raghava Aditya Renukunta <RaghavaAditya.Renukunta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Nikola, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nikola Pajkovsky [mailto:npajkovsky@xxxxxxx] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 2:02 AM >> To: Raghava Aditya Renukunta >> <RaghavaAditya.Renukunta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: jejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- >> scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Scott Benesh <scott.benesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tom >> White <tom.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; dl-esc-Aacraid Linux Driver >> <aacraid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Guilherme G . Piccoli >> <gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bart Van Assche >> <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/30] scsi: aacraid: Merge adapter setup with resolve >> luns >> >> EXTERNAL EMAIL >> >> >> Raghava Aditya Renukunta <RaghavaAditya.Renukunta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> writes: >> >> > The device hotplug events are processed only after retrieving the updated >> > lun information from the fw. Does not make sense to keep them separate. >> > >> > Merge both the hotplug handling and safw adapter setup code into single >> > function. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Raghava Aditya Renukunta >> <RaghavaAditya.Renukunta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> According to subsequent commit >> >> [PATCH v2 23/30] scsi: aacraid: Block concurrent hotplug event handling >> >> this commit is racy, because 23/30 adds ->scan_mutex. Shouldn't be these >> commits squashed? > > I tried to make the patches as logically distinct as possible, maybe I > got a bit too ambitious and I expected the patches to go thru as a set so > I don’t think it would make any difference. What do you think? It does make difference, when you start cherry-picking patches to downstream kernel. However, I don't have strong opinion here, so it can stay as is. -- Nikola
