[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=QXj0Do_PDvFmu5v8Py_tm_uJdDh_PQu_96M2v@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:26:40 -0400
From: Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com>
To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc: linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
James Smart <james.smart@...lex.com>,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@...co.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Drop host_lock around LLD SHT->queuecommand() caller
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
<nab@...ux-iscsi.org> wrote:
> and LLDs have adopted over the years. The changes involved here are really
> quite straight forward, but please note that none of this code has been tested
> with actual hardware yet, and is intended for generating comments for the relivent
> SCSI LLD driver maintainers and other interested folks.
>
NO. Why not try testing it w/ an abort storm first else we will
seriously end up screwing the filesystems....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists