From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jthumshirn Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/2] Update SCSI target removal path Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:58:39 +0200 Message-ID: <31317011e72e1beb610c6ba3a28ee92c@suse.de> References: <1459356208.2509.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1459356208.2509.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , "Ewan D. Milne" , Hannes Reinecke , Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 2016-03-30 18:43, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 09:09 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >> [resend with linux-scsi@ in Cc, my apologies] >> >> This is a follow up to "scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state >> to scsi_target_state". >> >> If anyone has an idea how to create a regression test suite for the >> target removal path I'd be all ears, given the fact that this is the >> 3rd or 4th patch targeting it. > > Actually, could you reverse the order of these patches, please. It's > not safe to revert the soft lockup fix until after the intermediate > state is introduced. I'd rather we didn't go through a point in the > tree where the bug exists again. You're right. I'll resend the series in reverse order.