On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Pradeep Satyanarayana <prade...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Pradeep Satyanarayana >> <prade...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> I realize that the following patch: >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/97243/ >>> >>> is queued in your backlog of patches and unlikely that it will go into >>> 2.6.35. >>> What are the chances that it will make it into 2.6.36? This patch has fixed >>> a >>> a rarely seen crash and we would like it to go upstream ASAP. >> >> The following comment was made on that patch by Ralph Campbell (see >> also http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org/msg03125.html): >> >> "Quite right. I should also use list_for_each_entry_safe(). I will fix this." >> >> This makes me wonder whether version three of this patch can go in >> unmodified ? > > There was a version 4 that followed. That was what I was referring to.
Thanks for the info -- I had missed version four of that patch. Now that I had a look at it, why does the comment above ipoib_cm_flush_path() say that it removes all entries while the loop inside that function is stopped after the first entry has been found and removed ? Why does that function use list_for_each_entry_safe() while only a single entry is removed ? Bart. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
