Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754984AbcDDJjp (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 05:39:45 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58783 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754044AbcDDJjo (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 05:39:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 11:39:42 +0200 From: Johannes Thumshirn To: James Bottomley Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , "Ewan D. Milne" , Hannes Reinecke , Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to scsi_target_state In-Reply-To: <1459614980.2306.5.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <95ae7ee32dca23bb7f3ab432046fb7016b341049.1459428540.git.jthumshirn@suse.de> <1459614980.2306.5.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1196 Lines: 29 On 2016-04-02 18:36, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 14:53 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >> Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to scsi_target_state to avoid >> running >> into the BUG_ON() in scsi_target_reap(). >> >> This intermediate state is only valid in the path from >> scsi_remove_target() to >> scsi_target_destroy() indicating this target is going to be removed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn >> Fixes: 40998193560dab6c3ce8d25f4fa58a23e252ef38 > > The code and ordering is fine with me, so you can add > > Reviewed-by: James Bottomley > > However, I'd really appreciate it if the description of what was going > on was clearer for a non-SUSE distro maintainer. What we're doing is > applying a more comprehensive fix for a previously hack fixed problem > and then reverting the hack. I think message 1 should say "this > refixes the problem introduced by commit X in a more comprehensive way" > > and message 2 "Now that we've done a more comprehensive fix with the > intermediate target state in patch Y, we can remove the previous hack" > > James OK, I'll try my very best. Thanks for the review.