From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, stable@gnu.org,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
Doug Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 part1 1/4] sg_io: pass request_queue to blk_verify_command
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:05 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1369380965.1945.10.camel@dabdike> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1369317503-4095-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 15:58 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Adjust the blk_verify_command function to let it look at per-queue
> data. This will be done in the next patch.
This is not a bug fix. This is an enabler for your complex and to my
mind dubious rework of the SG_IO command filter. I'm running out of
ways to say please don't mix bug fixes with features, because this
redesignating of the original patch set as part 1 and parts 2,3 doesn't
satisfy the requirement.
Does anyone in the real world actually care about this bug? because if
not perhaps we can just remove the confusion and consider this as a
feature set. If there's someone who actually cares, please lets just do
the bug fix first and argue about the feature later.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-24 7:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-23 13:58 [PATCH v3 part1 0/4] Fix SG_IO ambiguity between READ SUBCHANNEL and UNMAP (and other similar cases) Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-23 13:58 ` [PATCH v3 part1 1/4] sg_io: pass request_queue to blk_verify_command Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-24 7:36 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2013-05-24 7:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-24 7:50 ` James Bottomley
2013-05-24 7:53 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-24 8:03 ` James Bottomley
2013-05-24 8:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-24 21:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-25 4:14 ` James Bottomley
2013-05-25 6:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-23 13:58 ` [PATCH v3 part1 2/4] sg_io: prepare to introduce per-class command filters Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-23 13:58 ` [PATCH v3 part1 3/4] sg_io: use different default filters for each device class Paolo Bonzini
2013-05-23 13:58 ` [PATCH v3 part1 4/4] sg_io: resolve conflicts between commands assigned to multiple classes (CVE-2012-4542) Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-27 9:34 ` [PATCH v3 part1 0/4] Fix SG_IO ambiguity between READ SUBCHANNEL and UNMAP (and other similar cases) Luis Henriques
2014-08-27 10:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-27 12:08 ` Luis Henriques
2014-08-27 17:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1369380965.1945.10.camel@dabdike \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dgilbert@interlog.com \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@gnu.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox