On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:56:08AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Bart, Ming:
>
> can you guys please work a little better together? We've now got two
> patchsets that are getting very similar.
>
> Bart, please at least CC Ming when you send out the patches.
>
> Ming - instead of sending a separate series right after Bart a
> differential series would be nice. This also applies the other way
> around if Ming is the first after a while.
Hi Chritoph,
Could you take a look at my yesterday's post V8? Which should
address all previous issues? Except for Tejun's comment
about document __percpu_ref_tryget_live() a bit, and I will
do it in V9.
I have commented on Bart's patchset before, but my comments
never gets addressed:
1) no MD changes required on this issue
2) RCU read lock is missed in fast path
3) bad patch title:
- such as : 'scsi-mq: Reduce suspend latency'
this is very misleading since it is actually bug fix
- such as : "Make SCSI device suspend and resume work reliably"
also a bit not accurate
Also holding sdev->state_mutex before freezing queue might
cause deadlock since this lock can be acquired in eh handler(
scsi_eh_offline_sdevs())
--
Ming
