> 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