On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 22:19 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:05:30 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 12:29 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:08:44 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 18:00 -0400, Jörn Eng
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:05:30 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 12:29 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:08:44 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 18:00 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the overhead doesn't
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 12:29 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:08:44 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 18:00 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the overhead doesn't matter. The msleep(100) spells this
> > > out rather explicitly. What doe
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:08:44 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 18:00 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the overhead doesn't matter. The msleep(100) spells this
> > out rather explicitly. What does matter is that a) the patch retains
> > old behaviour with mu
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 18:00 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:00:03 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 16:30 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
> > > The second parameter was always 0, leading to effectively dead code. It
> > > called list_del() and se_cmd->se_tfo
On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:00:03 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 16:30 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
> > The second parameter was always 0, leading to effectively dead code. It
> > called list_del() and se_cmd->se_tfo->release_cmd(), and had to set a
> > flag to prevent target_
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 16:30 -0400, Joern Engel wrote:
> The second parameter was always 0, leading to effectively dead code. It
> called list_del() and se_cmd->se_tfo->release_cmd(), and had to set a
> flag to prevent target_release_cmd_kref() from doing the same.
Look again. The call to transpo
The second parameter was always 0, leading to effectively dead code. It
called list_del() and se_cmd->se_tfo->release_cmd(), and had to set a
flag to prevent target_release_cmd_kref() from doing the same. But most
of all, it iterated the list without taking se_sess->sess_cmd_lock,
leading to race
8 matches
Mail list logo