[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch
    On Mon, Jan 12 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:51:42PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
    > > More or less. But part of it also is that a lot of the patches I've
    > > written are on top of other patches that people don't want (aka, the
    > > iorl patch).
    > I'm wondering whether we want it now that 2.4 is basically frozen, but
    > I don't think there was a strong case against it say 4 or 5 month ago.
    > OTOH given that success (or lack thereof) I had pushing core changes
    > through Marcelo the chances it had even if scsi folks ACKed wouldn't
    > have been too high.

    That's the key point, is it appropriate to merge now...

    But I can completely back Doug on the point he made wrt pusing stuff
    back to mainline - it was hard, because we deviated too much. And that
    is also what I stressed would be the most important argument for merging
    the iorl + scsi core changes.

    > > I've got a mlqueue patch that actually *really* should go
    > > into mainline because it solves a slew of various problems in one go,
    > > but the current version of the patch depends on some semantic changes
    > > made by the iorl patch. So, sorting things out can sometimes be
    > > difficult. But, I've been told to go ahead and do what I can as far as
    > > getting the stuff out, so I'm taking some time to try and get a bk tree
    > > out there so people can see what I'm talking about. Once I've got the
    > > full tree out there, then it might be possible to start picking and
    > > choosing which things to port against mainline so that they don't depend
    > > on patches like the iorl patch.
    > I personally just don't care enough about 2.4 anymore, so I don't think
    > I'll invest major amounts of time into it. Even though the scsi changes
    > you've done are fairly huge I'm wondering whether we should just throw
    > it all in anyway - given that you said you'll have to care for the 2.4
    > scsi stack for a longer time for RH and no one else seems to be interested
    > doing maintaince.


    Jens Axboe

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.022 / U:40.480 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site