Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch

[Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Doug Ledford wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 14:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:12:30PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > as the patch discussed in this thread, i.e. pure (partially
> > > > vintage) bugfixes.
> > >
> > > Both SuSE and Red Hat submit bugfixes they put in the respective trees to
> > > marcelo already. There will not be many "pure bugfixes" that you can find in
> > > vendor trees but not in marcelo's tree.
> >
> > I haven't seen SCSI patches sumission for 2.4 from the vendors on linux-scsi
> > for ages.  In fact I asked Jens & Doug two times whether they could sort out
> > the distro patches for the 2.4 stack and post them, but it seems they're busy
> > enough with real work so this never happened.
>
> 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'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.

Hi,

Merging "straight" _bugfixes_ (I think all we agree that merging
performance enhancements at this point in 2.4 is not interesting) which,
as you said, get reviewed by Jens/James/others is OK.

What is this mlqueue patchset fixing ? To tell you the truth, I'm not
aware of the SCSI stack problems.