On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 10:53 -0700, Andy Grover wrote: > On 04/24/2014 10:34 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:36:27PM -0700, Andy Grover wrote: > >> Does this set look ok, or any other changes needed? Just haven't heard > >> anything. > > > > the series looks reasonable to me, at least for the points I previously > > comment on. > > > > Cheers, > > Christoph > > > > p.s. it helps to cc me if you want a quick reply. > > Cool, thanks. Will do in the future. > > Nick, thoughts? > So now that target code (plus Sagi's patches) is finally working correctly with active I/O shutdown with iser + friends, I'm not exactly crazy about introducing a bunch of changes that potentially break long standing assumptions about how se_lun + se_dev_entry pointers are accessed. That said, I'd much rather see proper percpu refcounting for se_dev_entry introduced ahead of these types of memory space related optimizations. --nab -- 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
