Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch | From | James Bottomley <> | Date | 12 Jan 2004 11:04:17 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 10:52, Doug Ledford wrote: > Well, the scsi-dledford-2.4 tree is intended to be someplace I can put > all the stuff I'm having to carry forward in our kernels, so that's > distinctly different than a driver update only tree. I could do that > separately and I have no problem doing that.
I'll take that as a "yes" then ;-)
Thanks for doing this, beacuse I really wasn't looking forward to trying to sort it all out.
> As for the other stuff, > I'm not pushing to necessarily get any of my changes into mainline. I > would be happy if they make it there sometime as that would relieve load > off of me, but at the same time I *am* making some changes to the core > code (sorry Jens, but there are some ways in which the 2.4 core scsi > code is just too broken to believe and leaving it broken just means > dealing with everyone that points it out in bugzilla entries) and I know > people are loath to change core code in mainline, so I kinda figured a > lot of that stuff would either A) stay separate or B) only after myself > and other interested parties agree on a patch and that patch is widely > tested and known good then maybe it might get moved over, up to Marcelo.
I trust your judgement about this, so it sounds like we have the beginnings of a good working model for 2.4
James
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |