Raghava Aditya Renukunta <raghavaaditya.renuku...@microsemi.com> writes:
> Hi Nikola, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nikola Pajkovsky [mailto:npajkov...@suse.cz] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 2:02 AM >> To: Raghava Aditya Renukunta >> <raghavaaditya.renuku...@microsemi.com> >> Cc: j...@linux.vnet.ibm.com; martin.peter...@oracle.com; linux- >> s...@vger.kernel.org; Scott Benesh <scott.ben...@microsemi.com>; Tom >> White <tom.wh...@microsemi.com>; dl-esc-Aacraid Linux Driver >> <aacr...@microsemi.com>; Guilherme G . Piccoli >> <gpicc...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Bart Van Assche >> <bart.vanass...@wdc.com> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/30] scsi: aacraid: Merge adapter setup with resolve >> luns >> >> EXTERNAL EMAIL >> >> >> Raghava Aditya Renukunta <raghavaaditya.renuku...@microsemi.com> >> writes: >> >> > The device hotplug events are processed only after retrieving the updated >> > lun information from the fw. Does not make sense to keep them separate. >> > >> > Merge both the hotplug handling and safw adapter setup code into single >> > function. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Raghava Aditya Renukunta >> <raghavaaditya.renuku...@microsemi.com> >> >> According to subsequent commit >> >> [PATCH v2 23/30] scsi: aacraid: Block concurrent hotplug event handling >> >> this commit is racy, because 23/30 adds ->scan_mutex. Shouldn't be these >> commits squashed? > > I tried to make the patches as logically distinct as possible, maybe I > got a bit too ambitious and I expected the patches to go thru as a set so > I don’t think it would make any difference. What do you think? It does make difference, when you start cherry-picking patches to downstream kernel. However, I don't have strong opinion here, so it can stay as is. -- Nikola
