On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:32:44PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 09:15 -0600, Scott Bauer wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:26:37PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 09:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > Please just add a flag to ->flags
On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 09:15 -0600, Scott Bauer wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:26:37PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 09:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Please just add a flag to ->flags instead of adding a whole new field.
> > >
> > > Otherwise this looks
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:26:37PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 09:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Please just add a flag to ->flags instead of adding a whole new field.
> >
> > Otherwise this looks good to me.
>
> Hello Christoph,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I
On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 09:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Please just add a flag to ->flags instead of adding a whole new field.
>
> Otherwise this looks good to me.
Hello Christoph,
Thanks for the feedback. I will make the proposed change and post a second
version.
Bart.
Please just add a flag to ->flags instead of adding a whole new field.
Otherwise this looks good to me.
Dereferencing shost from scsi_exit_rq() is not safe because the
SCSI host may already have been freed when scsi_exit_rq() is
called. Increasing the shost reference count in scsi_init_rq()
and dropping that reference in scsi_exit_rq() is nontrivial since
scsi_host_dev_release() may sleep and since
6 matches
Mail list logo