linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: ensure nvme_timeout complete before initializing procedure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:43:04 +0800
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     sagi@...mberg.me, james.smart@...adcom.com,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        axboe@...com, maxg@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: ensure nvme_timeout complete before
 initializing procedure

Hi Christoph and Keith

Really sorry for this.

On 01/23/2018 05:54 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:14:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> Link: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lkml.org_lkml_2018_1_19_68&d=DwICAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=7WdAxUBeiTUTCy8v-7zXyr4qk7sx26ATvfo6QSTvZyQ&m=xJVh7u7o8UBQko2JJRmxqldiuMhaIosNJN8WTkhAF98&s=uk1TvCGpW928A4GMJh1tvxNvPiVfgJvFjjPn69f8fNA&e=
>>> Suggested-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
>>
>> Why does this have a signoff from Keith?
> 
The the nvme_sync_queues is from Keith in the mail thread, so I added this.
I will discard it and just reserve "suggested-by" later.

> Right, I hadn't signed off that. I just trying to get feeback if
> someting like that was closing the theoretical gap, which it does.

Yes.

> 
> I actually have something similar in my patch queue I was about to send
> around this area, though. I don't like having the IO path take on the
> error handling, and I think ending unstarted requests directly will be
> better long term.
Yes.

Many thanks for your kindly response.


Thanks
Jianchao