Re: [patch] scsi: revert "[SCSI] Get rid of scsi_cmnd->done"

[Ingo Molnar]

* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 17:12 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > > The reproducer came to you via Peter Osterlund who has never 
> > > > authored a single drivers/scsi/ commit before (according to git-log) 
> > > > and who (and here i'm out on a limb guessing it) does not even 
> > > > follow linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > 
> > > > this bug was obscure and hidden on linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > > > for _months_, (it is a rarely visited and rarely read mailing 
> > > > list) and there was just not enough "critical mass" to get this 
> > > > issue fixed.
> > > 
> > > If I were you, I'd actually make a cursory effort to get my facts 
> > > straight before spouting off.
> > > 
> > > This bug was actually hidden in bugzilla for ages, where Matthew 
> > > Wilcox was trying to deal with it on his own. [...]
> > 
> > Huh? The bugzilla just tracked a bug reported to lkml. The very 
> > description of the bugzilla says:
> > 
> >  Subject         : v2.6.24-rc2-409-g9418d5d: attempt to access beyond end of device
> >  Submitter       : Thomas Meyer <thomas@xxxxxxxx>
> >  References      : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/13/250
> > 
> > so no, it was evidently not "hidden in bugzilla for ages" - all the 
> > important action happened on lkml.
> 
> ... and your original accusation was "this bug was obscure and hidden 
> on linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for _months_" which I was pointing out 
> wasn't true.

you are right - let me rephrase it as: "this issue was mainly hidden due 
to the unhealthy ping-pong between lkml (which you said you didnt read), 
linux-scsi and bugzilla".

> Even the original lkml report was obscured by sweeping the report into 
> bugzilla and forgetting about it, so in fact, no action happened, even 
> on lkml.

all the "action" already happened on the first day of reporting the bug. 
(the wrong commit was identified, but that's besides the point - it all 
sat inactive after that point. I pinged the bugzilla to get the lkml 
discussion active again, not to debug it there.)

what got movement into it all again was the revert.

> Can we stop it with the recriminations and blame shifting now. [...]

what "blame shifting" ???

all i'm worried about here is the long latency for a bugfix which very 
apparently (to me) happened due to the isolation of linux-scsi and the 
resulting bug processing inefficiencies. Bugs happen and nobody is to be 
"blamed" for the bug itself - but the bug processing flow was broken and 
i've pointed that out. (If you see similar cases for code i maintain, 
and if you can pinpoint the reason why you think it happened and how to 
improve that, then please point it out to me as well.)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/