Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:03:51 +0000 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |