> On Jun 13, 2018, at 9:20 AM, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 16:13 +0000, Madhani, Himanshu wrote:
>>> On Jun 13, 2018, at 6:05 AM, Mikhail Malygin <m.malygin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is the patch used for verification:
>>>
>>> [PATCH] scsi: qla2xxx: Fixup spinlock recursion in qla_target
>>>
>>> The patch reverts changes done in qlt_schedule_sess_for_deletion()
>>> To avoid spinlock recursion sess->vha->work_lock should be used
>>> instead of ha->tgt.sess_lock, that can be locked in
>>> callers: qlt_reset() or qlt_handle_login()
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for testing out the change.
>>
>>> Fixes: 1c6cacf4ea6c04 ("scsi: qla2xxx: Fixup locking for session
>>> deletion")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Malygin <m.malygin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> I want to see following tags for correctness
>>
>> Fixes: 1c6cacf4ea6c04 ("scsi: qla2xxx: Fixup locking for session
>> deletion”)
>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> #4.17
>> Reported-by: Mikhail Malygin <m.malygin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Tested-by: Mikhail Malygin <m.malygin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> No on this last one: he can't add your signoff tag. The Signed-off-by:
> tags track the patch submission path and has meaning under the DCO, so
> if Mikhail sends it to you and you send it to the list (or you pick it
> off the list and resend it) *you* can add your signoff but not if it
> goes straight from Mikhail to the scsi tree (for this case we have an
> Acked-by: tag instead if that works for you?).
>
In that case Yes
Acked-by: Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@xxxxxxxxxx>
> James
>
Thanks,
- Himanshu
