On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:53:28PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > 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
Not mention 'block, scsi, md: Improve suspend and resume' in this cover letter, which is really misleading, since this patchset is really bug fix. -- Ming
