From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI: Fix some locking issues Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:55:00 -0500 Message-ID: <1214963700.3316.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <877ic8o4iq.fsf@denkblock.local> <87prpxnv4w.fsf@denkblock.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:40743 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757484AbYGBBzI (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:55:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87prpxnv4w.fsf@denkblock.local> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Elias Oltmanns Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 23:37 +0200, Elias Oltmanns wrote: > Hi James, > > sorry for bothering you but I've just noticed that the patch below has > neither been scheduled for the stable review, nor queued up for Linus. > May be you just don't consider this serious enough for these trees but I > wanted to make sure that the situation will be dealt with eventualy. The > patch applies to 2.6.26-rc8. OK, well at first glance, the locking around device_blocked and host_blocked looks pointless. What are the failure traces you're using to decide they need spinlock protection? The blk_plug_queue change looks reasonable ... however, blk_plug_queue itself looks like it might not entirely need the queue lock ... I need to investigate more closely. James