Re: [PATCH 01/21] uas: replace WARN_ON_ONCE() with lockdep_assert_held()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:15:41PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09/10/2014 02:54 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 14:00 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 09/10/2014 01:56 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 13:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Note this series is NOT intended for stable, but I accidentally
> >>>> had "cc = stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" in my .git/config when sending
> >>>> this series, please ignore for stable.
> >>>>
> >>>> NACK for stable.
> >>>
> >>> If this is not for stable, what do you intend to do about
> >>> the problems in stable? For example patch#01 of this series
> >>> looks like clear stable material to me.
> >>
> >> The plan for stable is mostly, as lame as that is, to make sure
> >> we get all the right quirks in place so that error handling
> >> does not get triggered, for now.
> > 
> > How? A medium can be defect. Short of entirely disabling it,
> > error handling will be triggered.
> 
> I agree that this is a concern, but defective disks are not the
> norm. All the bugs I've received sofar seem to be about incompatibilities
> between the Linux uas/scsi stack and the device, not defective mediums.
> 
> >> I agree that once this set has seen wider testing, we should
> >> reconsider, and probably add it, to stable. But at this point
> >> in time I'm worried that it may cause regressions, and as such
> >> it is not stable material atm IHMO.
> > 
> > Well, we would exchange something known to work imperfectly
> > for something feared to work imperfectly.
> 
> True. Note as said I'm not against this going into stable, I just don't
> want to rush it into stable. So first lets get it reviewed and into
> 3.18 (and see how it works for the users who have been having troubles
> sofar, see my request for testing), and then see from there.
> 
> I assume that you agree that this is (way) too late for 3.17?

Yes it is.

And I agree, let's test this out first, and if it solves problems,
_then_ we can backport it to stable as needed.

thanks for the patches, I'll queue them up for 3.18.

greg k-h
--
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux