Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch

[Christoph Hellwig]

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.

> 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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/