Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266412AbUALQFP (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:05:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266433AbUALQFO (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:05:14 -0500 Received: from stat1.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.130]:32384 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266412AbUALQFD (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:05:03 -0500 Subject: Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch From: James Bottomley To: Doug Ledford Cc: Jens Axboe , Martin Peschke3 , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Yao , Linux Kernel , linux-scsi mailing list In-Reply-To: <1073922773.3114.275.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> References: <20040112141330.GH24638@suse.de> <1073920110.3114.268.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> <1073921054.2186.16.camel@mulgrave> <20040112154345.GE1255@suse.de> <1073922773.3114.275.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-9) Date: 12 Jan 2004 11:04:17 -0500 Message-Id: <1073923459.2186.23.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1563 Lines: 34 On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 10:52, Doug Ledford wrote: > Well, the scsi-dledford-2.4 tree is intended to be someplace I can put > all the stuff I'm having to carry forward in our kernels, so that's > distinctly different than a driver update only tree. I could do that > separately and I have no problem doing that. I'll take that as a "yes" then ;-) Thanks for doing this, beacuse I really wasn't looking forward to trying to sort it all out. > As for the other stuff, > I'm not pushing to necessarily get any of my changes into mainline. I > would be happy if they make it there sometime as that would relieve load > off of me, but at the same time I *am* making some changes to the core > code (sorry Jens, but there are some ways in which the 2.4 core scsi > code is just too broken to believe and leaving it broken just means > dealing with everyone that points it out in bugzilla entries) and I know > people are loath to change core code in mainline, so I kinda figured a > lot of that stuff would either A) stay separate or B) only after myself > and other interested parties agree on a patch and that patch is widely > tested and known good then maybe it might get moved over, up to Marcelo. I trust your judgement about this, so it sounds like we have the beginnings of a good working model for 2.4 James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/