Re: [PATCH] IB/srp: Fix initiator lockup

From: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: David Dillow <dave-i1Mk8JYDVaaSihdK6806/g@public.gmane.org>
Cc: OFED mailing list
	<linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Chris Worley <worleys-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/srp: Fix initiator lockup
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 08:13:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2e108261001032313v472d4b9dm75c3d0b1a9268adc@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1262568846.13289.4.camel-1q1vX8mYZiGLUyTwlgNVppKKF0rrzTr+@public.gmane.org>

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:34 AM, David Dillow <dave-i1Mk8JYDVaaSihdK6806/g@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 13:19 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > This patch fixes this issue by adding support for SRP_CRED_REQ information
> > units in the SRP initiator. Additionally, this patch makes the per-session
> > variable req_lim visible through sysfs, which makes observing the initiator
> > state easier.
>
> I agree that we should add support for SRP_CRED_REQ, but I'm not
> thrilled with the mix of changes in the patch, as well as the general
> aesthetics of the result. How about something like the following series
> -- posted as a follow up to this message -- with proper credit for Bart?
> I'll sign off on them once we're happy with a direction and Bart acks.
>
> Also, these are all compile tested only, so they need some testing. I
> don't have anything that uses these messages, so some help would be
> appreciated.

Is that regular kernel coding practice, to run away with the work
someone else did and to claim authorship ? As far as I know this is
considered as impolite.

Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html