On 4/30/2015 2:25 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 04/30/15 11:51, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 4/30/2015 11:58 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
- srp_change_conn_state(target, false);
+ ch->connected = false;
Shouldn't this be protected by the channel lock (like the target)?
On all CPU architectures I'm familiar with changes of boolean variables
are atomic so I think modifying that variable without locking is fine.
@@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ struct srp_rdma_ch {
struct completion tsk_mgmt_done;
u8 tsk_mgmt_status;
+ bool connected;
I generally agree with this flag, but I'm a bit confused about the
semantics of two connected flags? Also, we check the target connected
flag on TMFs, although we are executing it on a channel (should we
check both?)
I'd say keep only the channel connected flag, the target logic needs to
be mandated by the state.
I think we need both flags. The ch->connected flag is used only in
srp_destroy_qp() to verify whether a channel has been disconnected
before it is destroyed. The target->connected flag provides an easy way
to test the connected state in e.g. srp_disconnect_target().
We can just as easily check rport state. rport state is modified before
target-connected. I still think one is redundant.
And if it
is attempted to send a task management function over a channel that has
just been disconnected that should be fine since any channel disconnect
causes tl_err_work to be queued. That last action will sooner or later
result in a reconnect.
Will it be fine to queue commands when the channel is in reconnecting
stage?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
