On 06/24/13 15:34, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 09:13 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 06/24/13 04:36, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:51 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Now that all scsi_request_fn() callers hold a reference on the
SCSI device that function is in
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 09:13 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 06/24/13 04:36, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:51 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >> Now that all scsi_request_fn() callers hold a reference on the
> >> SCSI device that function is invoked for
> >
> > What makes yo
On 06/24/13 04:36, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:51 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Now that all scsi_request_fn() callers hold a reference on the
SCSI device that function is invoked for
What makes you think that this is a true statement? The usual caller is
the block layer,
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:51 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Now that all scsi_request_fn() callers hold a reference on the
> SCSI device that function is invoked for
What makes you think that this is a true statement? The usual caller is
the block layer, which doesn't really know anything about t
On 6/12/13 7:51 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Now that all scsi_request_fn() callers hold a reference on the
SCSI device that function is invoked for and since
blk_cleanup_queue() waits until scsi_request_fn() has finished
it is safe to remove the get_device() / put_device() pair from
scsi_request_f
Now that all scsi_request_fn() callers hold a reference on the
SCSI device that function is invoked for and since
blk_cleanup_queue() waits until scsi_request_fn() has finished
it is safe to remove the get_device() / put_device() pair from
scsi_request_fn().
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche
Acked-b
6 matches
Mail list logo