On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 12:09 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Hm, it looks like the state set in scsi_sysfs_add_sdev() is bogus. We
> expect the state to have been properly set before that (in
> scsi_add_lun), so can we not simply remove it?
>
> James
>
I was considering that, but...
enum scsi_device_state {
SDEV_CREATED = 1, /* device created but not added to sysfs
* Only internal commands allowed (for inq) */
So it seems the intent was for the state to not change until then.
The call to set the SDEV_RUNNING state earlier in scsi_add_lun()
was added with:
commit 6f4267e3bd1211b3d09130e626b0b3d885077610
Author: James Bottomley <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com>
Date: Fri Aug 22 16:53:31 2008 -0500
[SCSI] Update the SCSI state model to allow blocking in the created state
Which allows the device to go into ->BLOCK (which is needed, since it
actually happens).
Should we remove the call from scsi_sysfs_add_sdev() and change the
comment in scsi_device.h to reflect the intent?
I have not verified the async vs. non-async scan path yet but it looks
like it would be OK.
-Ewan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
