On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: >> The changes above are large (170k diffs so far), and at this point are >> being run-through our testing. The hope is to get the changes >> upstream during one of the next two merge windows. >> >> Given the infrustructure mods and our focus on that front, if there's >> something small and contained you can offer above what I've proposed >> we'll be interested in reviewing any patches you'd push forward. > > Then, I believe, my patch should go in as a temporal measure. I don't think > we should crash users for 2 more major releases. So the 'online' check concerns you? So, add an 'unloading' flag, set it on remove_one(), save a copy of dpc_thread at qla2xxx_wake_dpc(), then wake_up() saved value if not 'unloading'. Of course the direct wake_up() in request_acqusition should be modded to call qla2xxx_wake_dpc(). We're not talking about some huge window here. > The same is true for my > other patch "Proposed protection of fcports field of struct scsi_qla_host" > as well, because without it there should be no big problems to crash the > driver via sysfs. We're still looking through your patches... So how exactly would it be 'be no big problems to crash the driver via sysfs.'??? -- 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
