[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <e926cd4a-ba76-36f0-9d1c-d039d9ca5d11@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:28:29 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Hendrik Brückner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] zfcp: spin_lock_irqsave() is not nestable
On 10/24/2016 10:18 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 10:21 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>>> "Steffen" == Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>> Steffen> could you please queue this as fix for one of my patches that
>> Steffen> went into the 4.9 merge window, so for 4.9-rc I guess?
>>
>> Applied to 4.9/scsi-fixes.
>>
>
> FWIW, I do see rcu stall errors with 4.9-rc1 from time to time, so I assume
> that this fix is not only theoretical but fixes a real life issue.
Yes, with that patch the rcu stalls are gone, I assume its already on a branch
that does not rebase, otherwise feel free to add
Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists