>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Christie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 11:51 PM
>To: Dev, Vasu
>> and that is a separate issue but in general what do you think on
>> calling into fc_exch.c with or without any lock held ?
>>
>
>For fc_fcp.c we just have those issues where we want to set the seq_ptr
>after we call exch_seq_send, so if there was some crazy case where we
>send the sequence, and it completes on a another thread before
>exch_seq_send returns the fc_fcp.c response handler is going to get
>confused. Does fc_exch.c prevent this type of race for the upper layer?
No, fc_exch.c cannot ensure this in current implementation.
I think I didn't explain my self well in last response, my intent was
to get clarification to have any lock held or not before
calling into fc_exch.c functions including (exch_seq_send()).
In fact, currently local port lock is held almost all the time when
calling into fc_exch.c, so not just changed fc_lun_reset_send()
calling into fc_exch.c with pkt lock held and some other code
doing same. Rob is re-working on lock port locking which
may not require lock across fc_exch.c but not sure.
I get your point that in some case upper layers need locking
across fc_exch.c and perhaps this cannot be avoided.
Thanks
--Vasu
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
