Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932296AbWEWV0x (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2006 17:26:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932292AbWEWV0x (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2006 17:26:53 -0400 Received: from mx.pathscale.com ([64.160.42.68]:10437 "EHLO mx.pathscale.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932291AbWEWV0w (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2006 17:26:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 10] ipath - fix spinlock recursion bug From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" To: Roland Dreier Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:26:51 -0700 Message-Id: <1148419611.22550.11.camel@chalcedony.pathscale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 (2.6.1-1.fc5.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 924 Lines: 24 On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 14:09 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > Thanks, I've put 1 through 10 into my git tree and asked Linus to pull. Thanks. > BTW, I just tried SRP with 2.6.17-rc4 + my for-2.6.18 tree + all of > these patches, and immediately after connecting to a storage target I > get the following: Yes, I have another large pile of fixes to sort out. Unfortunately, all of them depend on some "code motion" driver changes that, in an ideal world, should be deferred until 2.6.18. Regenerating and testing them against 2.6.17, without the code motion, is a big pain in the big painful body region. How do you feel about taking one code motion patch for 2.6.17? :-)