[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1459614980.2306.5.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 09:36:20 -0700
From: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: "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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] scsi: Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to
scsi_target_state
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 14:53 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Add intermediate STARGET_REMOVE state to scsi_target_state to avoid
> running
> into the BUG_ON() in scsi_target_reap().
>
> This intermediate state is only valid in the path from
> scsi_remove_target() to
> scsi_target_destroy() indicating this target is going to be removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
> Fixes: 40998193560dab6c3ce8d25f4fa58a23e252ef38
The code and ordering is fine with me, so you can add
Reviewed-by: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
However, I'd really appreciate it if the description of what was going
on was clearer for a non-SUSE distro maintainer. What we're doing is
applying a more comprehensive fix for a previously hack fixed problem
and then reverting the hack. I think message 1 should say "this
refixes the problem introduced by commit X in a more comprehensive way"
and message 2 "Now that we've done a more comprehensive fix with the
intermediate target state in patch Y, we can remove the previous hack"
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists