mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: Martin Peschke3 <MPESCHKE@de.ibm.com>,
	Arjan Van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>,
	Peter Yao <peter@exavio.com.cn>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi mailing list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:08:31 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1073920110.3114.268.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040112141330.GH24638@suse.de>

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12 2004, Martin Peschke3 wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > is there a way to merge all (or at least the common denominator) of
> > Redhat's and SuSE's changes into the vanilla 2.4 SCSI stack?
> > The SCSI part of Marcelo's kernel seems to be rather backlevel,
> > considering all those fixes and enhancements added by the mentioned
> > distributors and their SCSI experts. As this discussion underlines,
> > there are a lot of common problems and sometimes even common
> > approaches.  I am convinced that a number of patches ought to be
> > incorporated into the mainline kernel. Though, I must admit
> > that I am at a loss with how this could be achieved given the
> > unresolved question of 2.4 SCSI maintenance
> > (which has certainly played a part in building up those piles
> > of SCSI patches).
> 
> I have mixed feelings about that. One on side, I'd love to merge the
> scalability patches in mainline. We've had a significant number of bugs
> in this area in the past, and it seems a shame that we all have to fix
> them independently because we deviate from mainline.

Agreed (I've had to fix the iorl patch 3 or 4 times for things that
weren't bugs in the iorl patch until mainline got updated with a new
lock somewhere or things like that).

>  On the other hand,
> 2.4 is pretty much closed. There wont be a big number of new distro 2.4
> kernels.
> 
> Had you asked me 6 months ago I probably would have advocated merging
> them, but right now I think it's a waste of time.

>From my standpoint, we are going to be maintaining our 2.4 kernel RPMs
for a long time, so my preference is to have it in mainline.  On top of
the performance stuff I have also been building some actual bug fix
patches.  They depend on the behavior of the patched kernels, and in
some cases would be difficult to put on top of a non-iorl patched scsi
stack.  In any case, my current plans include putting my 2.4 scsi stack
stuff up for perusal on linux-scsi.bkbits.net/scsi-dledford-2.4 as soon
as I can sort through the patches and break them into small pieces.

-- 
  Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>     919-754-3700 x44233
         Red Hat, Inc.
         1801 Varsity Dr.
         Raleigh, NC 27606



  reply	other threads:[~2004-01-12 15:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-12 14:07 Martin Peschke3
2004-01-12 14:11 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-12 14:13 ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12 15:08   ` Doug Ledford [this message]
2004-01-12 15:24     ` James Bottomley
2004-01-12 15:43       ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12 15:52         ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 16:04           ` James Bottomley
2004-01-12 16:05             ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 15:07 Martin Peschke3
2004-01-12 15:12 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-12 19:48   ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-12 19:51     ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 20:03       ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-12 21:12         ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-13 20:55       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-01-17 13:10         ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 16:58           ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-17 19:07             ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 19:17               ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-17 19:21                 ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 19:29                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-17 20:36                     ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-20  7:53               ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-25  0:31           ` Kurt Garloff
2004-01-15 17:17       ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-17 13:12         ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 15:16           ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-17 16:07             ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 16:32 Peter Yao
2004-01-12  9:08 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-12  9:19   ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12  9:19     ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12  9:20       ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-12  9:22         ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12 13:27           ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-15 17:01             ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-15 17:05               ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-15 17:09               ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-15 19:30               ` Doug Ledford
     [not found] <1d6yN-6HH-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <1dasC-5Ww-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]   ` <1ejkf-724-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found]     ` <1elvB-Jt-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-01-16 15:40       ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-19 21:36 Martin Peschke3
2004-03-08 21:25 ` Doug Ledford

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1073920110.3114.268.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com \
    --to=dledford@redhat.com \
    --cc=MPESCHKE@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=arjanv@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peter@exavio.com.cn \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®