From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] vfio-ccw: Prevent quiesce function going into an infinite loop References: <4d5a4b98ab1b41ac6131b5c36de18b76c5d66898.1555449329.git.alifm@linux.ibm.com> <20190417110348.28efc8e3.cohuck@redhat.com> <20190417171311.3478402b@oc2783563651> <20190419221251.5b4aa9c8.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <8bd8ec0b-8b0c-3e74-1b14-7fad7470679e@linux.ibm.com> <20190423194251.093304c7.pasic@linux.ibm.com> From: Eric Farman Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:37:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <55061641-439f-8964-48e1-fa70f5c4b490@linux.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Farhan Ali , Halil Pasic Cc: Cornelia Huck , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, pmorel@linux.ibm.com List-ID: On 4/23/19 3:41 PM, Farhan Ali wrote: > > > On 04/23/2019 01:42 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: ...snip... >> TL;DR: >> >> I welcome  this batch (with an r-b) but I would like the commit message >> and the comment changed so that the misleading 'flush all I/O in the >> workqueue'. >> >> I think 'vfio-ccw: fix cio_cancel_halt_clear() usage' would reflect the >> content of this patch better, because reasoning about the upper limit, >> and what happens if this upper limit is hit is not what this patch is >> about. It is about a client code bug that rendered iretry ineffective. >> > > I politely disagree with the change in subject line. I think the current > subject line describe what we are trying to prevent with this patch. But > again if anyone else feels otherwise, I will go ahead and change :) I think the entire patch is fine as-is. Reviewed-by: Eric Farman > > Thanks > Farhan > > >> Regards, >> Halil >> >>