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: <1289929012.11405.12.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:36:52 +0000
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	"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 Tue, 2010-11-16 at 09:25 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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?

I was thinking through next for a few days to see if anything breaks in
the architectures with scsi drivers we can't compile on x86 ... but
realistically that will happen in -rcX as well, so I'm happy either way.

James


--
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/