From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/11] lpfc 8.1.1 : Fixes to error handlers Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:17:32 +0000 Message-ID: <20051130191732.GC19164@infradead.org> References: <9BB4DECD4CFE6D43AA8EA8D768ED51C21D7B76@xbl3.emulex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:57535 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751505AbVK3TRf (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:17:35 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9BB4DECD4CFE6D43AA8EA8D768ED51C21D7B76@xbl3.emulex.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Cc: hch@infradead.org, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:16:33PM -0500, James.Smart@Emulex.Com wrote: > Well - we would prefer the vendor test the system as it should behave > in normal circumstances rather than test-suite-derived conditions. > > Yes, we will sign up for this. However, we have several items on our > plate so we won't be on this quickly. I would hope there would be no > issue with accepting the patch as is and backing out the relatived code > as part of the eventual patch. No. As you might have noticed fixing mid-layer bugs in drivers is generally not okay.