On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 08:02 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 02/06/16 21:19, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 20:19 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > >> On 02/06/16 19:17, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > >>> Here is -v4 series to address the set of of LUN_RESET > >>> active I/O + TMR se_cmd->cmd_kref < 0 bugs as reported > >>> recently by Quinn & Co. This can occur during active > >>> I/O remote port TMR LUN_RESET with multi-port LIO > >>> configurations. > >> > >> Hi Nic, > >> > >> If I understood the purpose of this patch series correctly then this > >> patch series is a brave attempt to fix what is also fixed by my patch > >> called "target: Make ABORT and LUN RESET handling synchronous". Wouldn't > >> it be better to focus on that patch instead of trying to fix the current > >> approach in which TMR handling happens from the another context than the > >> command processing context ? > >> > > > > This statement is a gross oversimplification of the issues involved. > > > > If you'll recall, this was already highlighted in the context of your > > patch here: > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg11057.html > > > > There are a number of comments on why the bug-fix was incorrect and > > broken, the basics of what needed to be done and in what order it should > > happen. > > > > But instead of replying to the comments, this was your response: > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg11542.html > > > > If you are authentically interested in understanding the issues > > involved, you'll probably need to go back and comment on those topics > > individually, instead of ignoring them. > > Hi Nic, > > What you write is not correct. All your review comments that made sense > have been addressed in the latest version of my patch > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg11666.html). Did you respond to the specific feedback of my email..? No. Did you include a change-log in the subsequent patch explaining the changes..? No. If you're still not willing or able to have a technical discussion on the specific issues involved or give feedback inline to the patch series itself, then you are just trying to waste everyone's time. > > Additionally, you haven't answered my question. My question was: why to > spend more energy on trying to fix the current approach if the LIO TMR > handling code can be simplified greatly by handling ABORT and LUN RESET > from the regular command execution path ? > Because your patch was incorrect and broken, and you still don't seem interested in taking the time to actually understand why that is. Listen, Bart, I'm getting tired of your inability to have a technical discussion of the issues. So that said, I'm going to put down some ground rules for our future interactions. I expect you to: - Ask questions when you're unsure of a specific piece of code, before attempting to push changes to re-write significant pieces and spend community review cycles. - Comment inline to all feedback for changes of substance. - Stop ignoring subsystem maintainer feedback. - Provide a change-log between patches for all changes of substance. If you are genuinely interested in contributing to LIO, then these should be a no-brainer. If you aren't genuinely interested in contributing to LIO, then keep doing what you're doing. -- 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
