From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] Separate target visibility from reaped state information Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 09:54:30 -0800 Message-ID: <1454522070.2338.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <568FE922.9090004@sandisk.com> <1453251809.2320.56.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160131185455.00000ef7@localhost> <20160203171727.GA4828@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:54910 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965099AbcBCRyd (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:54:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160203171727.GA4828@lst.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Sebastian Herbszt , Bart Van Assche , Johannes Thumshirn , Dan Williams , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 18:17 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:11:29PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > I am concerned about queuing something as a stable fix if it is > > just > > masking a fundamental underlying problem. > > It's not masking a fundamental problem. It fixes the target > state so that we can mark a starget as being under deletion > before we have to drop the list protecting the target list > iteration. Independ of any any other scanning changes it is the > right thing to do. It introduces a bug while doing so ... that's a problem. James