From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [OOPS] 2.6.11 - NMI lockup with CFQ scheduler Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:30:58 -0400 Message-ID: <1112880658.5842.10.camel@mulgrave> References: <20050329115405.97559.qmail@web52909.mail.yahoo.com> <20050329120311.GO16636@suse.de> <1112804840.5476.16.camel@mulgrave> <20050406175838.GC15165@suse.de> <1112811607.5555.15.camel@mulgrave> <20050406190838.GE15165@suse.de> <1112821799.5850.19.camel@mulgrave> <20050407064934.GJ15165@suse.de> <1112879919.5842.3.camel@mulgrave> <20050407132205.GA16517@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat16.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.48]:57765 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262467AbVDGNbI (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:31:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20050407132205.GA16517@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Chris Rankin , Linux Kernel , SCSI Mailing List On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 14:22 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Do we really need the sdev_lock pointer? There's just a single place > where we're using it and the code would be much more clear if it had just > one name. Humour me for a while. I don't believe we have any way the lock can be used after calling queue free, but nulling the sdev_lock pointer will surely catch them. If nothing turns up after a few kernel revisions, feel free to kill it. James