On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 12:13 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:10 AM, James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 22:33 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> On 04/22/2012 01:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 16:37 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > >> >> When managing shost->host_eh_scheduled libata assumes that there is a > >> >> 1:1 shost-to-ata_port relationship. libsas creates a 1:N relationship > >> >> so it needs to manage host_eh_scheduled cumulatively at the host level. > >> >> The sched_eh and end_eh port port ops allow libsas to track when domain > >> >> devices enter/leave the "eh-pending" state under ha->lock (previously > >> >> named ha->state_lock, but it is no longer just a lock for ha->state > >> >> changes). > >> >> > >> >> Since host_eh_scheduled indicates eh without backing commands pinning > >> >> the device it can be deallocated at any time. Move the taking of the > >> >> domain_device reference under the port_lock to guarantee that the > >> >> ata_port stays around for the duration of eh. > >> > > >> >> Cc: Tejun Heo<tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> Acked-by: Jacek Danecki<jacek.danecki@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > Could we standardise on Acked-by, please. In my book it means the > >> > maintainer of a piece of code agrees with the change and lets me take it > >> > through my tree. I'm aware that not everyone uses this definition, so > >> > we can use a different standard from my current one, but what does it > >> > mean in this case? > >> > >> The above, IMO, should be s/Acked-by/Signed-off-by/ > > > > Yes, I suspect this too. > > No, it means: > > "If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a > patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can > arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog." Isn't that tested-by or reviewed-by? > "Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker > has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch > mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" > into an Acked-by:" Reviewed-by is the appropriate one for that then. Acked-by usually means the person has more involvement in the particular subsystem than would be implied by reviewed-by. Like I said, I tend to reserve acked-by for maintainers of the various elements that have to go through different trees. > What's wrong with Acked-by? Signed-off-by involves co-authorship or > handled the patch, Reviewed-by is probably better, but maybe not > everyone is comfortable asserting the "Reviewer's statement of > oversight". I'll certainly continue to take Jack's "looks ok to me " > as Acked-by the pm8001 maintainer for libsas changes that don't touch > drivers/scsi/pm8001. Right, so reviewed by or approved by the maintainer == acked-by. > For internal acks we should probably aim for promoting to Reviewed-by > or Tested-by... if Acked-by is unwelcome in scsi. We're just struggling to understand why it's there. If it's read and approved the patch, then reviewed-by is the more appropriate. If it's actually booted and ran through a set of unit/QA tests, then it should be tested-by. James -- 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
