linux-kernel - Re: Patch added to scsi-rc-fixes-2.6: [SCSI] host lock push-down

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4CDB3028.6080605@garzik.org>
Date:	Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:52:08 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
CC:	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Patch added to scsi-rc-fixes-2.6:  [SCSI] host lock push-down

On 11/10/2010 06:45 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 18:28 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On 11/10/2010 05:40 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> Your commit:
>>>
>>>       [SCSI] host lock push-down
>>>
>>>       Move the mid-layer's ->queuecommand() invocation from being locked
>>>       with the host lock to being unlocked to facilitate speeding up the
>>>       critical path for drivers who don't need this lock taken anyway.
>>>
>>>       The patch below presents a simple SCSI host lock push-down as an
>>>       equivalent transformation.  No locking or other behavior should change
>>>       with this patch.  All existing bugs and locking orders are preserved.
>>>
>>>       Minimal code disturbance was attempted with this change.  Most drivers
>>>       needed only two one-line modifications for their host lock push-down.
>>>
>>>       Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik<jgarzik@...hat.com>
>>>       Signed-off-by: James Bottomley<James.Bottomley@...e.de>
>>>
>>> has been added to the upstream SCSI tree
>>> You can find it here:
>>
>> No comments on renaming ->queuecommand to something else?
>
> What we wondered about doing differently isn't really relevant for a
> change log ... that should just really be about what was done (to avoid
> confusion).

Wasn't referring to the changelog (perhaps shouldn't have quoted that); 
just asking the question generally.


>> The consequences are rather dire if this goes unnoticed, yes?
>
> You mean if there's a missed in-tree driver?  Yes, but I took care to
> make sure all SCSI drivers were accounted for.  For out of tree drivers,
> as with the eh lock push down, it's caveat emptor.

Thinking about out-of-tree drivers, yes.

	Jeff


--
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/