[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111122220218.GA17543@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:02:18 -0500
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: block: initialize request_queue's numa node during allocation
On Tue, Nov 22 2011 at 4:45pm -0500,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> > From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
> > Subject: block: initialize request_queue's numa node during allocation
> >
> > Set request_queue's node in blk_alloc_queue_node() rather than
> > blk_init_allocated_queue_node(). This avoids blk_throtl_init() using
> > q->node before it is initialized.
> >
> > Rename blk_init_allocated_queue_node() to blk_init_allocated_queue().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
>
> When I debug an issue and suggest a patch to fix it in addition to
> suggesting the possible cleanup for blk_init_allocated_queue_node(), I
> don't expect that you'll just take it and claim it as your own, sheesh.
Sorry I pissed you off. But I'm not that hard up for credit. I was
just looking to make sure proper _code_ changes occurred ;) I didn't
take enough time to fully appreciate the long road you've travelled on
this.
Jens, I'll defer to David to post a proper patch header. David please
claim the patch and its contents as your own in v2. But feel free to
add my Signed-off-by.
Thanks,
Mike
--
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