[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9552a506-e53a-3fd3-b38e-3cec81e713a6@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:55:05 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: arm scsi drivers
Hi Russell,
Have you had a chance to consider the below?
Thanks
>
> Recently we tried to remove scsi_cmnd.tags struct member [0].
>
> However it now shows that some of the arm SCSI drivers continue to use
> this [1]. I think any other driver usage of this member had been found
> and removed.
>
> The impression is that the usage of scsi_cmnd.tag in those drivers is
> quite dubious.
>
> Now checking [2], it appears that you may have had some patches for
> these drivers locally.
>
> So is that the case? Is this HW still used with bleeding edge kernels?
> If so, can we fix up this tag management?
>
> [0]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/6c83bd7f-9fd2-1b43-627f-615467fa55d4@huawei.com/T/#mb47909f38f35837686734369600051b278d124af
>
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/6c83bd7f-9fd2-1b43-627f-615467fa55d4@huawei.com/T/#md5d786e5753083b2f3e8e761b1c69809f82c7485
>
>
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210109174357.GB1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
>
> Thanks,
> John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists