From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] scsi: revert "[SCSI] Get rid of scsi_cmnd->done"
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:45:25 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0801021227140.32517@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1199304735.3258.53.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> OK ... I'll revert it. However, I still think it's the wrong course of
> action, because as far as my analysis goes, this code is functionally
> equivalent to what went before with the exception that we now rely on
> the request->cmd_type information in the post processing (previously we
> just relied on the cmnd->done pointer).
To say that another way:
"the code is functionally equivalent, EXCEPT IT ISN'T, and it's
known to be broken".
wouldn't you say my version is more honest and correct?
The old code did a per-command callback. The new one doesn't. The code was
*supposed* to be equivalent, but it clearly isn't. Why argue the point?
And no, maybe it's not that REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC should be calling ->done,
maybe it's that some REQ_TYPE_FS commands should *not* be calling ->done.
Or maybe we somehow got the wrong ->done in the first place, because we
now get it from a different source.
I don't know, but what I'm arguing (very strongly) against is this
attitude of "we don't know what's wrong, but wë́'ll leave it broken because
we can't be bothered to figure it out".
That is exactly what reverting is there for. It doesn't matter one *whit*
if the new code is cleaner and prettier, if it doesn't work.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-02 20:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-02 16:25 Ingo Molnar
2008-01-02 16:46 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-02 19:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-02 19:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-01-02 19:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-02 20:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-01-02 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-02 20:53 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-01-02 20:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-01-02 20:12 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-02 20:45 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-01-02 23:33 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-03 1:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-06 2:55 ` Peter Osterlund
2008-01-06 3:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-06 10:17 ` Peter Osterlund
2008-01-06 14:04 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-06 14:42 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-06 15:01 ` Peter Osterlund
2008-01-06 18:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-06 18:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-06 18:54 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-06 16:19 ` Boaz Harrosh
2008-01-06 16:47 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-06 13:57 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-06 14:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-06 15:20 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-06 15:45 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-06 16:00 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-06 16:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-06 17:10 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-08 16:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-06 17:11 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-01-06 17:36 ` James Bottomley
2008-01-06 18:34 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-01-06 18:56 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-06 19:10 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-01-06 19:58 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-06 21:08 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-01-06 22:25 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-07 20:50 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-07 21:31 ` Alan Cox
2008-01-07 21:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-01-07 23:04 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-07 23:19 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-01-08 16:47 ` Stefan Richter
2008-01-08 17:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-08 20:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-09 4:01 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-09 4:10 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-09 6:03 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-01-09 4:03 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-07 15:25 ` John Stoffel
2008-01-07 19:04 ` Stefan Richter
2008-01-07 19:59 ` John Stoffel
2008-01-06 17:29 ` Stefan Richter
2008-01-06 20:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-06 13:55 Thomas Meyer
2008-01-06 16:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
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=alpine.LFD.1.00.0801021227140.32517@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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®