linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] 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: <AANLkTi=GGq0tMAWtwa-yQBpmpA8JCSWu1XK1rQ2j_Cmo@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:25:21 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] SCSI host lock push-down

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Looks ok to me. How should I take this? Just as a patch? Or should it
go through the scsi tree?

                   Linus
--
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/