From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] target/iscsi: Convert timers to use timer_setup() Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:42:12 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20171027091930.GA14728@beast> <1509109031.3135.1.camel@wdc.com> <1509470185.12927.1.camel@wdc.com> <1509471239.12927.3.camel@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1509471239.12927.3.camel@wdc.com> (Bart Van Assche's message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:34:00 +0000") Sender: target-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "keescook@chromium.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "varun@chelsio.com" , "target-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "jiangyilism@gmail.com" , "nab@linux-iscsi.org" List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Bart, > The tree I tested indeed includes that rebased patch. BTW, since the code > touched by that patch has not been modified in the past months, the rebased > patch is identical to the patch I posted in May 2017. OK. Just checking. So what's the plan here? Should both patches be routed through the timer tree? -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:42:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] target/iscsi: Convert timers to use timer_setup() Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20171027091930.GA14728@beast> <1509109031.3135.1.camel@wdc.com> <1509470185.12927.1.camel@wdc.com> <1509471239.12927.3.camel@wdc.com> In-Reply-To: <1509471239.12927.3.camel@wdc.com> (Bart Van Assche's message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:34:00 +0000") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "keescook@chromium.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "varun@chelsio.com" , "target-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "jiangyilism@gmail.com" , "nab@linux-iscsi.org" Bart, > The tree I tested indeed includes that rebased patch. BTW, since the code > touched by that patch has not been modified in the past months, the rebased > patch is identical to the patch I posted in May 2017. OK. Just checking. So what's the plan here? Should both patches be routed through the timer tree? -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754011AbdJaRmX (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:42:23 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:45819 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753944AbdJaRmV (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:42:21 -0400 To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "martin.petersen\@oracle.com" , "keescook\@chromium.org" , "linux-scsi\@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , "varun\@chelsio.com" , "target-devel\@vger.kernel.org" , "jiangyilism\@gmail.com" , "nab\@linux-iscsi.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] target/iscsi: Convert timers to use timer_setup() From: "Martin K. Petersen" Organization: Oracle Corporation References: <20171027091930.GA14728@beast> <1509109031.3135.1.camel@wdc.com> <1509470185.12927.1.camel@wdc.com> <1509471239.12927.3.camel@wdc.com> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:42:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1509471239.12927.3.camel@wdc.com> (Bart Van Assche's message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:34:00 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bart, > The tree I tested indeed includes that rebased patch. BTW, since the code > touched by that patch has not been modified in the past months, the rebased > patch is identical to the patch I posted in May 2017. OK. Just checking. So what's the plan here? Should both patches be routed through the timer tree? -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering