Re: [PATCH 03/12] libata, libsas: introduce sched_eh and end_eh port ops

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:10 AM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 22:33 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> On 04/22/2012 01:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 16:37 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >> When managing shost->host_eh_scheduled libata assumes that there is a
>> >> 1:1 shost-to-ata_port relationship.  libsas creates a 1:N relationship
>> >> so it needs to manage host_eh_scheduled cumulatively at the host level.
>> >> The sched_eh and end_eh port port ops allow libsas to track when domain
>> >> devices enter/leave the "eh-pending" state under ha->lock (previously
>> >> named ha->state_lock, but it is no longer just a lock for ha->state
>> >> changes).
>> >>
>> >> Since host_eh_scheduled indicates eh without backing commands pinning
>> >> the device it can be deallocated at any time.  Move the taking of the
>> >> domain_device reference under the port_lock to guarantee that the
>> >> ata_port stays around for the duration of eh.
>> >
>> >> Cc: Tejun Heo<tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Acked-by: Jacek Danecki<jacek.danecki@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Could we standardise on Acked-by, please.  In my book it means the
>> > maintainer of a piece of code agrees with the change and lets me take it
>> > through my tree.  I'm aware that not everyone uses this definition, so
>> > we can use a different standard from my current one, but what does it
>> > mean in this case?
>> The above, IMO, should be s/Acked-by/Signed-off-by/
> Yes, I suspect this too.

No, it means:

"If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog."

"Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
into an Acked-by:"

What's wrong with Acked-by?  Signed-off-by involves co-authorship or
handled the patch, Reviewed-by is probably better, but maybe not
everyone is comfortable asserting the "Reviewer's statement of
oversight".  I'll certainly continue to take Jack's "looks ok to me "
as Acked-by the pm8001 maintainer for libsas changes that don't touch

For internal acks we should probably aim for promoting to Reviewed-by
or Tested-by... if Acked-by is unwelcome in scsi.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photos]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux