From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Full hostlock pushdown available Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:50:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20101028215017.GB2797@basil.fritz.box> References: <20101028150508.GA2385@basil.fritz.box> <1288294123.3043.164.camel@mulgrave.site> <20101028201036.GA2797@basil.fritz.box> <1288297365.10498.4.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:34743 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756140Ab0J1VuV (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:50:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1288297365.10498.4.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Andi Kleen , nab@linux-iscsi.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > To put this upstream, I need the single commit (with changelog and > signoff). Otherwise the series won't bisect. Murphys law says that if > I apply an unbisectable series like this, all the kernel bisections in > the next few months will end up in here, and I'll take a huge amount of > flack ... I expect even without the locking it should be safe enough for a bisect test. Not for production of course. And most drivers don't really need the lock anyways so they are safe in any case. An alternative would be to use a different lock around the call temporary during the series and drop it again at the end. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.