Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265656AbUAMVGx (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:06:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265659AbUAMVGn (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:06:43 -0500 Received: from intra.cyclades.com ([64.186.161.6]:12435 "EHLO intra.cyclades.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265656AbUAMVGb (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:06:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:55:14 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@logos.cnet To: Doug Ledford Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Arjan Van de Ven , Martin Peschke3 , Jens Axboe , Peter Yao , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi mailing list , ihno@suse.de Subject: Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch In-Reply-To: <1073937102.3114.300.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> Message-ID: References: <20040112151230.GB5844@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040112194829.A7078@infradead.org> <1073937102.3114.300.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Cyclades-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Cyclades-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2154 Lines: 44 On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 14:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:12:30PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > as the patch discussed in this thread, i.e. pure (partially > > > > vintage) bugfixes. > > > > > > Both SuSE and Red Hat submit bugfixes they put in the respective trees to > > > marcelo already. There will not be many "pure bugfixes" that you can find in > > > vendor trees but not in marcelo's tree. > > > > I haven't seen SCSI patches sumission for 2.4 from the vendors on linux-scsi > > for ages. In fact I asked Jens & Doug two times whether they could sort out > > the distro patches for the 2.4 stack and post them, but it seems they're busy > > enough with real work so this never happened. > > More or less. But part of it also is that a lot of the patches I've > written are on top of other patches that people don't want (aka, the > iorl patch). I've got a mlqueue patch that actually *really* should go > into mainline because it solves a slew of various problems in one go, > but the current version of the patch depends on some semantic changes > made by the iorl patch. So, sorting things out can sometimes be > difficult. But, I've been told to go ahead and do what I can as far as > getting the stuff out, so I'm taking some time to try and get a bk tree > out there so people can see what I'm talking about. Once I've got the > full tree out there, then it might be possible to start picking and > choosing which things to port against mainline so that they don't depend > on patches like the iorl patch. Hi, Merging "straight" _bugfixes_ (I think all we agree that merging performance enhancements at this point in 2.4 is not interesting) which, as you said, get reviewed by Jens/James/others is OK. What is this mlqueue patchset fixing ? To tell you the truth, I'm not aware of the SCSI stack problems. - 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/