[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABE8wwtqEPkv-SeQU=CfUt45BrW2XWdCV6s3o6FhyZ3GbV9uPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:06:41 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Eldad Zack <eldad@...refinery.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
James Bottomley <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [set5 PATCH 2/6] async: make async_synchronize_full() flush all
work regardless of domain
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Eldad Zack <eldad@...refinery.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Dan Williams wrote:
>> In response to an async related regression James noted:
>>
>> "My theory is that this is an init problem: The assumption in a lot of
>> our code is that async_synchronize_full() waits for everything ... even
>> the domain specific async schedules, which isn't true."
>>
>> ...so make this assumption true.
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I've applied the all 6 patches of this set.
> (HEAD 8874e812feb4926f4a51a82c4fca75c7daa05fc5 , Linus' tree)
>
> I've tested it on the same setup and everything runs fine, and I've
> seen no suspicious messages.
>
> If you'd like, I can test only patch #2 in isolation.
No, I think the testing you've done is enough.
> Tested-by: Eldad Zack <eldad@...refinery.com>
Much appreciated.
--
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