From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.x use list_head to handle scsi starved request queues Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:30:37 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3E7F78FD.5030605@splentec.com> References: <20030319182755.A9535@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E7A1EF5.3050501@splentec.com> <20030320203912.A18471@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E7B7A9A.6030007@splentec.com> <20030321165050.B9578@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E7F3C67.5010704@splentec.com> <20030324112940.A11000@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E7F688C.3020009@splentec.com> <20030324202509.GF2371@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Patrick Mansfield , James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: > > > Irk no, that's quite a bad idea. Of course it's bad idea -- that's what I've been saying in all my emails in this thread, but no one listens, until now. > I completely agree with you that making assumptions about q->queue_lock > == host lock is really really bad. Don't do that. Well, Jens, after 4 emails saying the same thing in different words, but seeing no feedback, I _had to_ yield. But, I'm nevetheless learning how to participate in mailing lists -- just keep saying the same thing in different words, until ppl get what you're trying to say. -- Luben