[RESEND PATCH] scsi: shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock

shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock, otherwise the check of "called twice" won't work. Signed-off-by: Ouyang Zhaowei --- drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c

[RESEND PATCH] scsi: shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock

shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock, otherwise the check of "called twice" won't work. Signed-off-by: Ouyang Zhaowei --- drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c index

Re: [PATCH] scsi: shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock

1; spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags); @@ -1751,6 +1751,8 @@ static struct async_scan_data *scsi_prep_async_scan(struct Scsi_Host *shost) err: kfree(data); + unlock: + mutex_unlock(>scan_mutex); return NULL; } On 2017.9.11 9:44, Tyrel Datwyler

Re: [PATCH] scsi: shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock

estore(shost->host_lock, flags); @@ -1751,6 +1751,8 @@ static struct async_scan_data *scsi_prep_async_scan(struct Scsi_Host *shost) err: kfree(data); + unlock: + mutex_unlock(>scan_mutex); return NULL; } On 2017.9.11 9:44, Tyrel Datwyler wrote: > On 09/07/2017 11:54 PM

[PATCH] scsi: shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock

shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock, otherwise the check of "called twice" won't work. Signed-off-by: Ouyang Zhaowei --- drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c

[PATCH] scsi: shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock

shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock, otherwise the check of "called twice" won't work. Signed-off-by: Ouyang Zhaowei --- drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c index

Re: [Xen-devel] patch about "don't reset vcpu_info on a cancelled suspend"

On 2016/1/4 19:54, David Vrabel wrote: > On 29/12/15 05:49, Ouyangzhaowei (Charles) wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> This patch has been applied to for-linus-4.1b, and we wonder if this patch >> will be applied to linux kernel, or does >> it still needs more test to

Re: [Xen-devel] patch about "don't reset vcpu_info on a cancelled suspend"

On 2016/1/4 19:54, David Vrabel wrote: > On 29/12/15 05:49, Ouyangzhaowei (Charles) wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> This patch has been applied to for-linus-4.1b, and we wonder if this patch >> will be applied to linux kernel, or does >> it still needs more test to

patch about "don't reset vcpu_info on a cancelled suspend"

Hi David, This patch has been applied to for-linus-4.1b, and we wonder if this patch will be applied to linux kernel, or does it still needs more test to apply to linux kernel? thanks On 2015.5.28 19:07, David Vrabel wrote: >> vcpu_info would be reset to wrong place on canceled suspend on

patch about "don't reset vcpu_info on a cancelled suspend"

Hi David, This patch has been applied to for-linus-4.1b, and we wonder if this patch will be applied to linux kernel, or does it still needs more test to apply to linux kernel? thanks On 2015.5.28 19:07, David Vrabel wrote: >> vcpu_info would be reset to wrong place on canceled suspend on