Re: Large amount of scsi-sgpool objects

Ingo Molnar
2009-03-03T23:03:23Z

* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 22:44 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > > > So the real question is why does the -rt tree even have
> > > > > patches not in the vanilla SCSI tree? This type of cockup
> > > > > clearly demonstrates why it's a bad idea.
> > > >
> > > > Believe me, i have better things to do than to track down your
> > > > regressions. I applied a fix/test patch sent to me by SCSI
> > > > folks.
> > >
> > > Look, I've no problem with you collecting random patches. I
> > > have a problem when you start pushing random SCSI patches into
> > > other trees. [...]
> >
> > Both -tip and -rt are generic trees and there's a connection
> > between them that the maintainers of both are one and the same
> > set of people.
> >
> > So i'm not sure on what grounds you purport to be able to
> > prevent fixes from flowing from -tip into -rt and vice versa.
> >
> > You have no monopoly on the propagation and testing of SCSI
> > fixes. We picked up a v1 patch from the SCSI list and did not
> > add nor remove anything from it.
>
> OK, let me try and make the problem simpler for you: If you pick up
> random patches outside of your area [...]

Dude, lets make it clear to you: it is not "your area" that you
own in any way and you have no monopoly on SCSI fixes. We acted
out of necessity because the SCSI tree is taking very long to
get fixes upstream.

I reported this lockup bug to you on _January 15th_, more than
one and a half months ago - and it's still unfixed even today.
Alan sent his v2 fix on Feburary 19th - two weeks ago. We are
not asking you for much, is it really that hard to act like a
proper maintainer and get critical fixes upstream in a timely
manner?

Again, i repeat, i picked up a v1 patch from the SCSI list that
i reported and which patch was sent to me. I did that in the
hope to fix a serious lockup bug that is still unfixed in the
upstream kernel here and today. That kind of bug can cause data
corruption and is serious and you should have given full, high
priority attention to it - but you didnt.

A v2 patch was sent too but i missed it because it had the exact
same subject line and no 'v2' in its title.

I did not do this out of fun - i did it to address a serious
regression that was unfixed upstream.

If there's a failure here it's yours: your latency and
unreliability in SCSI bug fixing is forcing generic trees like
-tip or -rt (or -mm) to carry SCSI fixes while it should be
_your_ responsibility to act quickly to bugreports and get
critical fixes upstream as soon as possible.

Ingo