[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31317011e72e1beb610c6ba3a28ee92c@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:58:39 +0200
From: jthumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"Ewan D. Milne" <emilne@...hat.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/2] Update SCSI target removal path
On 2016-03-30 18:43, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 09:09 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> [resend with linux-scsi@ in Cc, my apologies]
>>
>> This is a follow up to "scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state
>> to scsi_target_state".
>>
>> If anyone has an idea how to create a regression test suite for the
>> target removal path I'd be all ears, given the fact that this is the
>> 3rd or 4th patch targeting it.
>
> Actually, could you reverse the order of these patches, please. It's
> not safe to revert the soft lockup fix until after the intermediate
> state is introduced. I'd rather we didn't go through a point in the
> tree where the bug exists again.
You're right. I'll resend the series in reverse order.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists