James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 23:37 +0200, Elias Oltmanns wrote: >> Hi James, > >> >> sorry for bothering you but I've just noticed that the patch below has >> neither been scheduled for the stable review, nor queued up for Linus. >> May be you just don't consider this serious enough for these trees but I >> wanted to make sure that the situation will be dealt with eventualy. The >> patch applies to 2.6.26-rc8. > > OK, well at first glance, the locking around device_blocked and > host_blocked looks pointless. What are the failure traces you're using > to decide they need spinlock protection? scsi_queue_insert() as well as scsi_finish_command() can be called at any time as part of regular command completion or error handling. There is no reason why the ->request_fn() for the same device or for another device on the same host should not be in progress at the same time. > > The blk_plug_queue change looks reasonable ... however, blk_plug_queue > itself looks like it might not entirely need the queue lock ... I need > to investigate more closely. Well, I rather think it does. We have to serialise access to the unplug_timer and there is a call to __set_bit() which, as I understand, requires the calling function to ensure atomicity. Regards, Elias -- 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
