[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MWHPR03MB2669CCE370BC22E648A468F6BF580@MWHPR03MB2669.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:46:41 +0000
From: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>,
"hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>, "hare@...e.de" <hare@...e.de>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"jth@...nel.org" <jth@...nel.org>,
Nick Meier <Nick.Meier@...rosoft.com>,
"Alex Ng (LIS)" <alexng@...rosoft.com>,
Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>,
"Adrian Suhov (Cloudbase Solutions SRL)" <v-adsuho@...rosoft.com>,
"Chris Valean (Cloudbase Solutions SRL)" <v-chvale@...rosoft.com>
Subject: RE: Boot regression (was "Re: [PATCH] genhd: Do not hold event lock
when scheduling workqueue elements")
> From: hch@....de [mailto:hch@....de]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 22:29
> To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
> Subject: Re: Boot regression (was "Re: [PATCH] genhd: Do not hold event lock
> when scheduling workqueue elements")
>
> Ok, thanks for testing. Can you try the patch below? It fixes a
> clear problem which was partially papered over before the commit
> you bisected to, although it can't explain why blk-mq still works.
Still bad luck. :-(
BTW, I'm using the first "bad" commit (scsi: allocate scsi_cmnd structures as
part of struct request) + the 2 patches you provided today.
I suppose I don't need to test the 2 patches on the latest linux-next repo.
Thanks,
-- Dexuan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists