> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:25 AM
> To: James Bottomley
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Praveen Murali; linux-scsi; sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [for 4.1 PATCH resend] libsas: fix "sysfs group not found"
> warnings
> at port teardown time
>
> > I didn't ask you to justify your process, I asked you how important you
> > thought the patch was mainly because of the conflicting signals you've
> > sent. I get that you think I should treat all your patches as important
> > whether you do or not, but the world doesn't quite work like that: patch
> > application is a process of triage. Patches, like this, which have
> > timing related issues potentially leading to races get looked at by me
> > as the last reviewer. The speed of review depends on several factors,
> > but one of which is what type of user visible issue is this causing.
> > The user visible effects of this are a nasty warning message and nothing
> > more, I believe? A useful indicator in this triage is how important the
> > submitter thinks the patch is, which was originally why I asked.
> >
>
> That would be a question to Praveen. It wasn't clear to me whether
> this sysfs backtrace was a simply a warning or eventually fatal to the
> box.
As far as I remember, the issue was mostly with the sysfs backtraces. I don’t
remember it causing a fatal error; but that could very well be because I did not
run it long enough.
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{���"�{ay� ʇڙ�,j��f���h���z� �w���
���j:+v���w�j�m��������zZ+�����ݢj"��!�i
