[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABE8wwuNLEO+jmp_08VGHFbzD94y4ZhOfrFw207d=tLWi0UJ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:49:13 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, mroos@...ux.ee,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] scsi: cleanup usages of scsi_complete_async_scans
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>> > }
>> >
>> > - /*
>> > - * We can't depend on SCSI devices being available after loading
>> > - * one of their modules until scsi_complete_async_scans() is
>> > - * called and the resume device usually is a SCSI one.
>> > - */
>> > - scsi_complete_async_scans();
>> > -
>>
>> I believe this is wrong. You're going to introduce a regression on systems
>> using built-in hibernation and built-in SCSI stack.
>
> Ah, wait. Do I understand correctly that wait_for_device_probe()
> is now going to do an equivalent of scsi_complete_async_scans()?
>
> If so, that should work, in which case please disregard my previous
> messages in this thread.
Yeah, no problem. Patch 3 is what changed the assumptions in this regard.
--
Dan
--
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