linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] libsas fixes for 3.4-rc4

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:39:23 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
CC:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	jack_wang <jack_wang@...sh.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] libsas fixes for 3.4-rc4

On 04/21/2012 03:57 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:28 AM, James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 15:29 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> These patches, save for the new "scsi: fix eh wakeup (scsi_schedule_eh
>>> vs scsi_restart_operations)" and "Revert "[SCSI] libsas: fix sas port
>>> naming", were all originally posted before the merge
>>> window opened, and have also appeared in -next for the same timeframe.
>>>
>>> The commit dates are not that aged (9 days old) because they were
>>> rebased out of larger set of updates that were pending for 3.4.
>>>
>>> There is a mix of pure regression fixes and fixes for long-standing bugs
>>> in libsas.  Some of the long-standing bug fixes are made worse / easier
>>> to trigger by the new async error handling scheme.
>>>
>>> The largest patch in the series is "libata, libsas: introduce sched_eh
>>> and end_eh port ops" it has been on the list since March 10th.
>>>
>>> Jack Wang has independently tested this set with pm8001 and reports
>>> success. [1]
>>>
>>> Apologies if scsi-rc-fixes was in the process of picking these up.  With
>>> -rc4 looming I lost my nerve and pulled the trigger.
>>
>> Right, so as a point of process, these are SCSI fixes and are supposed
>> to be going through the SCSI tree.  The only urgent one is the revert; I
>> still have outstanding questions about some of the others.
>
> Up until this feedback I thought the branch was going to be pulled
> intact.  So, not trying to subvert process, just thought this request
> would be seen as helpful since you seem to have been rather busy of
> late.  Yes, I'd much rather these go through the SCSI tree.

[thread semi-hijacking]

Busy-ness++  :/   I'm a bit disappointed that these one-liner bug fixes 
for SCSI have not been applied, despite repeated pings:

	http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg58712.html

Over a month has passed with zero comments (or objections), and we've 
now missed -rc4.

Unless I hear soon, I'll throw them into libata-dev (thus, linux-next) 
and kick them upstairs.

James has been replying to other stuff on the lists, so I'm not really 
sure how these basic, one-liner fixes keep slipping by.

	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/