On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 21:06 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > I like this approach since it keeps the cost outside of the fast > path. And it's fine to reuse the queue lock for this, instead of > adding a special lock for something we consider a rare occurrence. > > From a quick look this looks sane, but I'll take a closer look > tomrrow and add some testing too. Shouldn't we know the root cause of the "RIP: scsi_times_out+0x17" crash reported in https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=199077 before we decide how to proceed? Thanks, Bart.