On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:46 PM, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 08:06 +0100, Peter Huewe wrote: > > Am Dienstag 22 Dezember 2009 01:27:38 schrieb akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > > [ ... ] > > this patch is floating around for almost half a year (2009/06/23) and I was > > wondering if there is anything wrong with it, or why it doesn't get merged > > upstream. > > well, it still has to be tested. I'd guess IBM is putting out other > fires, since it's really just cosmetic, even in terms of memory savings. I'm not sure that's a valid reason for holding up ibmvscsi patches. If IBM not having time to retest ibmvscsi was a valid reason for blocking ibmvscsi patches, then all patches that touch any kernel subsystem used by ibmvscsi should be rejected. Examples of subsystems used by ibmvscsi are libsrp and kfifo. By the way, srp_iu_pool_alloc() in libsrp passes max * sizeof(void *) to the size argument of kfifo_init(), and kfifo_init() tests the size argument as follows: BUG_ON(!is_power_of_2(size)); The function srp_iu_pool_alloc() in libsrp neither verifies that 'max' is a power of two nor rounds up 'max' to the next power of two. Doesn't look very good ... Bart. -- 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
