From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760026Ab3EXHvF (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 03:51:05 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:37920 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759901Ab3EXHvC (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 03:51:02 -0400 Message-ID: <1369381857.1945.15.camel@dabdike> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 part1 1/4] sg_io: pass request_queue to blk_verify_command From: James Bottomley To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, FUJITA Tomonori , Doug Gilbert , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:50:57 +0400 In-Reply-To: <519F1A28.6080303@redhat.com> References: <1369317503-4095-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1369317503-4095-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1369380965.1945.10.camel@dabdike> <519F1A28.6080303@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 09:43 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 24/05/2013 09:36, James Bottomley ha scritto: > > 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. > > I made it part 1/2/3 because parts 2/3 depend on part 1. It makes > dependency tracking easier, at least in my mind. > > If you have another solution that does not require passing request_queue > to blk_verify_command, I'm all ears. That's a circular response that doesn't answer the question. The actual question is: what is simple fix for the bug that isn't entangled with enabling the SG_IO per device type whitelist feature. > > Does anyone in the real world actually care about this bug? > > Yes, or I would move on and not waste so much time on this. Fine, so produce a simple fix for this bug which we can discuss that's not tied to this feature. James