[reduced dist to only fcoe mail list] On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 21:17 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Vasu Dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 23:54 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > >> In fc_lport_error(), FC_EX_CLOSED could be understood to be no more > >> rettries, so resetting local port is reasonable and necessary. > >> > > > > It is not reasonable/necessary in this case as FC_EX_CLOSED is issued on > > lport reset thru exch block reset called there, so doing lport reset > > again in same call flow is not needed unless I'm missing something to do > > reset again here. Are hitting any bug which got fixed by this patch ? > > > Umm..why could lport reset then when no more retries, first?
No more retries on FC_EX_CLOSED code and therefore no need to add reset here as this patch does. The lport disable or destroy are cases to reset the lport for its cleanup before disable or destroy and that case no more retries. > And how about the state machine of lport then if nothing done, second? > For instance fc_lport_destroy moves lport to disabled state before doing exch_mgr_reset, so lport state is okay in that case by simply returning on FC_EX_CLOSED error code. > It looks not buggy, I think. > > > >> When processing response to flogi request, FC_EX_CLOSED should be > >> treated as other errors, since the state machine of local port could > >> reach reset. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> > >> --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c 2010-11-01 19:54:12.000000000 +0800 > >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c 2010-12-16 23:46:06.000000000 +0800 > >> @@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ static void fc_lport_error(struct fc_lpo > >> lport->retry_count); > >> > >> if (PTR_ERR(fp) == -FC_EX_CLOSED) > >> - return; > >> + goto reset; > >> > >> /* > >> * Memory allocation failure, or the exchange timed out > >> @@ -1029,6 +1029,7 @@ static void fc_lport_error(struct fc_lpo > >> > >> schedule_delayed_work(&lport->retry_work, delay); > >> } else > >> + reset: > >> fc_lport_enter_reset(lport); > >> } > >> > >> @@ -1428,9 +1429,6 @@ void fc_lport_flogi_resp(struct fc_seq * > >> > >> FC_LPORT_DBG(lport, "Received a FLOGI %s\n", fc_els_resp_type(fp)); > >> > >> - if (fp == ERR_PTR(-FC_EX_CLOSED)) > >> - return; > >> - > > > > Like other resp handlers in lport.c, above code is required instead just > > removing for fc_lport_flogi_resp, this is to allow exch clean up on > > exch block reset. > First, this error could be processed correctly after lock. > And it could be also processed with more cares not only in the above > error handler. Not sure what is the point here, if locking is your concern here then not sure how does removing above lines helps here. > > And the state machine of lport is the major concern of the patch, > simply returning > helps little. Not sure what is that little help here given above all details. Vasu _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
