James Bottomley wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 11:49 +0000, Daniel Drake wrote:
I assume you're aware that this patch is just a subset of commit
76d78300a6eb8 which you've already pushed up to Linus. Adding Nick Cheng
(commit author) to CC so that he can go over the feedback.
Well, in case it's not obvious by now: The way to get bad code upstream
is to send a patch that combines many changes (the more the better) so
that any potential reviewer has no idea which change is meant by which
hunk and then to make sure Andrew picks it up so he'll hound the
subsystem Maintainer until it's applied. Best of all, mention that it
fixes a bug and you're made.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound that as a criticism. I'm sure you have a
lot of patches flowing by you at any one time.
Here is a patch to address your comments.
Joshua, would you mind testing this before I submit it properly? It will
apply cleanly to 2.6.24 on top of the previous patch you tested. I have
compile-tested it.
The odd thing is, it should have triggered a might_sleep() warning under
testing ... do you know why it didn't?
No, and I can see that scsi_dispatch_command does invoke ->queuecommand
under a spinlock so it must be atomic context...
I'm not sure which might_sleep() codepath you are looking at though. At
a guess it depends on SLUB vs SLAB?
Daniel
-
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
