Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:19:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:19:49 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:11785 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:19:43 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:23:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jens Axboe cc: James Bottomley , Marcin Dalecki , Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction In-Reply-To: <20020729075520.C4445@suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1049 Lines: 33 On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > I think you are missing the point. The stuff should not be in the > > _generic_ blk_insert_request(). As I posted in my first reply to Martin, > > SCSI needs to clear the tag before calling blk_insert_request() if it > > needs to. > > Here's the patch to fix it, btw. Linus, please apply. I can't apply this while I think it looks horribly broken. Your patch makes scsi_lib call blk_queue_end_tag() without holding the queue spinlock. Which looks horribly broken, since it _will_ corrupt the queues. In fact, it looks about a million times more broken than the code that Martin submitted. Please explain to me why I am wrong. Linus PS. I actually do tend to look as the patches I apply. Right now it looks like you're wrong, and Martin is right. - 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/