From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:03:51 +0000 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040112200351.A7409@infradead.org> References: <20040112151230.GB5844@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040112194829.A7078@infradead.org> <1073937102.3114.300.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:2576 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264934AbUALUD6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:03:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1073937102.3114.300.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com>; from dledford@redhat.com on Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:51:42PM -0500 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: Arjan Van de Ven , Martin Peschke3 , Jens Axboe , Peter Yao , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi mailing list , ihno@suse.de On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:51:42PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > More or less. But part of it also is that a lot of the patches I've > written are on top of other patches that people don't want (aka, the > iorl patch). I'm wondering whether we want it now that 2.4 is basically frozen, but I don't think there was a strong case against it say 4 or 5 month ago. OTOH given that success (or lack thereof) I had pushing core changes through Marcelo the chances it had even if scsi folks ACKed wouldn't have been too high. > I've got a mlqueue patch that actually *really* should go > into mainline because it solves a slew of various problems in one go, > but the current version of the patch depends on some semantic changes > made by the iorl patch. So, sorting things out can sometimes be > difficult. But, I've been told to go ahead and do what I can as far as > getting the stuff out, so I'm taking some time to try and get a bk tree > out there so people can see what I'm talking about. Once I've got the > full tree out there, then it might be possible to start picking and > choosing which things to port against mainline so that they don't depend > on patches like the iorl patch. I personally just don't care enough about 2.4 anymore, so I don't think I'll invest major amounts of time into it. Even though the scsi changes you've done are fairly huge I'm wondering whether we should just throw it all in anyway - given that you said you'll have to care for the 2.4 scsi stack for a longer time for RH and no one else seems to be interested doing maintaince.