Hi Martin, Bart, I've not seen additional feedback on this (I may simply not be CCed). I've applied the patch to one of our hosts where we've had endless IO lockups (with MQ enabled the host died within a day or two, sometimes sub one hour, without it typically ran for about two weeks). With this patch (on top of 4.16) we're now at four days and 17 hours, with IO still going strong (including a mdadm reshape to add a disk, as well as a rebuild on a drive that failed - concurrently on two different arrays, same controller). Very subjective, but the host also feels more responsive under heavy IO load. What can I do from my side (I've got some development experience) to help push this patch forward? Kind Regards, Jaco On 28/03/2018 23:54, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > Bart, > >> Are you aware that if the 0-day test infrastructure suggests an improvement >> for a patch that the patch that that improvement applies to gets ignored >> unless either the patch is reposted with the improvement applied or that it >> is explained why the suggested improvement is inappropriate? > Correct. I don't apply anything that causes a 0-day warning. The patch > will be closed with "Changes Required" status in patchwork. > > Always build patch submissions to linux-scsi with: > > make C=1 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__" >