James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:57 -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
I haven't had time to review the eh changes, but I was going to reply to
the other one (basically there's a better way to try to close the device
add/host remove race using the host state
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:19 -0700, Mike Anderson wrote:
A side effect of not applying Alan's previous patch that added
SHOST_RECOVERY to the SHOST_CANCEL: state is that we will not move to the
SHOST_CANCEL and subsequently not to SHOST_DEL state
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And Mike Anderson's response was
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsim=110538854224319w=2
His explanation was Currently scsi_host_cancel being called from
scsi_remove_host appears to not do anything as scsi_forget_host removes
the devices from the
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan 10 20:49:08 desktop kernel: scsi113 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage
devices
Jan 10 20:49:08 desktop kernel: usb-storage: device found at 113
Jan 10 20:49:08 desktop kernel: usb-storage: waiting for device to settle
before scanning
Jan 10
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Mike Anderson wrote:
The LLDD queuecommand should not be called after the return of
scsi_remove_host (unless we have a bug). The LLDD should not free its
resources until the release function is called on the struct device
passed
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This BUG happened because the SCSI layer was still using the drive after
usb-storage had called scsi_remove_host().
In this case the scsi_remove_host is being called in a unexpected
disconnect case. Any IOs in flight will be canceled in the mid-layer
(i.e.,
PS, I am traveling today so future comments will be delayed a bit.
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All right, let's look at sd.c. I'll show you that _it_ doesn't obey the
object lifetime rules. In sd_open we see this code (lightly edited):
static int sd_open(struct inode
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I know why this happens, but I'm not entirely clear how to fix it.
The problem comes because the cdrom open and close take and release
references to the SCSI generic device (as they're supposed to).
However, Upper level Drivers like sr are
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can search the lkml archives for the bugs that my kobject patch
fixed, as there was some discussion there (otherwise I would have never
written the patch...)
I searched and found one thread that looks relevant:
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently I have not been spending the proper time looking at this, but
last look it appeared that we needed to add a release / put method call
to the gendisk disk_release routine. The release function or object to do
the put on would need to be set
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 11:45, Mike Anderson wrote:
Maybe some clarification here as I am unsure if we both think there
needs to be a notification (a put call) from outside SCSI. We have
release functions available on most objects in SCSI now
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
= drivers/scsi/sr.c 1.103 vs edited =
--- 1.103/drivers/scsi/sr.c Fri Apr 2 11:30:44 2004
+++ edited/drivers/scsi/sr.c Fri Apr 2 17:29:06 2004
@@ -424,8 +424,19 @@
static int sr_block_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seeing no sense key, usb-storage returns 0 indicating the command
succeeded. But scsi_finish_command() sees that valid sense data is
present and sets the driver_byte to DRIVER_SENSE.
SCSI error : 1 0 0 0 return code = 0x800
Current sda: sense key
This matches what I thought should be added to sd, but I did not hear an
answer from James / others if this is the way we should handle it.
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Mike Anderson wrote:
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seeing no sense key, usb
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:53:53AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:28:44AM +0200, Andries Brouwer wrote:
I see an Oops in the SCSI code, caused by the fact that sdkp is NULL
in sd_shutdown. How can that be?, you will ask -
Matthew Dharm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike --
As far as I can tell, this patch was never accepted. Any idea when this
will be resolved?
usb-storage is still waiting to implement proper device unplug...
I reposted the patch with refreshed offsets for the newer kernel
version.
-andmike
Matthew,
Sorry for the delay in replying (non coding activities are
consuming to many hours).
Matthew Dharm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I see Linus has now accepted this into his tree. It should propagate
to the USB development trees soon.
One question: What else is
Matthew Dharm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right... but I removed the release() function because that was marked (in
the documentation) as only for the old-style drivers. So I'll need to
re-introduce it -- but it looks like all it has to do is free some memory.
Does that sound about right?
Yes
Matthew Dharm [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
Any updates on this? I saw some patches, but they don't seem to be in my
tree (the usb tree, which is synced from Linus' tree).
People are starting to reports OOPSes to me because of this being
missing
Matt
The scsi_set_device_offline
Sorry Matthew I got side tracked on some issues for the last week. The
scsi_set_device_offline(); function has not been added to any of James
linux-scsi trees. You could add a ifndef in your code until we get the
interface in the tree.
Would scsi_set_device_offline() do more than sdev-online =
Doug,
I started writing the interface you put forth in your email. I
am currently debugging it in UML so I can generate the error
conditions in a control manner. I still have some stuff to look
at in the error handler with it running in this mode as it
Alan Stern [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Luben Tuikov wrote:
A LLDD should and must *not* call scsi_unregister_host(). This brakes
all hierarchy.
What I probably meant is the detect()/release() pair; release() itself
normally calls scsi_unregister(host); the
Luben Tuikov [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
Mike Anderson wrote:
Doug,
I started writing the interface you put forth in your email.
Do you mind clarifying? Either it was a private email, or
one posted here, in which case there was an interpretation.
It was posted here at the bottom
Oliver and Alan I am trying to catch up on this thread so I did not
reply directly to your concerns, but I think they are covered below.
Matthew Dharm [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 11:55:36AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
That is simply wrong. Reporting somebody having
24 matches
Mail list logo
