On 09/12/2018 10:29 AM, Jason Yan wrote: > If we went into sas_rediscover_dev() the attached_sas_addr was already > insured not to be zero. So it's unnecessary to check if the > attached_sas_addr is zero. > > And although if the sas address is not changed, we always have to > unregister the old device when we are going to register a new one. We > cannot just leave the device there and bring up the new. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <[email protected]> > CC: chenxiang <[email protected]> > CC: John Garry <[email protected]> > CC: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]> > CC: Ewan Milne <[email protected]> > CC: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> > CC: Tomas Henzl <[email protected]> > CC: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > CC: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c | 13 +++++-------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c > b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c > index fadc99cb60df..52222940d398 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c > @@ -2054,14 +2054,11 @@ static int sas_rediscover_dev(struct domain_device > *dev, int phy_id, bool last) > return res; > } > > - /* delete the old link */ > - if (SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr) && > - SAS_ADDR(sas_addr) != SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)) { > - SAS_DPRINTK("ex %016llx phy 0x%x replace %016llx\n", > - SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr), phy_id, > - SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)); > - sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr(dev, phy_id, last); > - } > + /* we always have to delete the old device when we went here */ > + SAS_DPRINTK("ex %016llx phy 0x%x replace %016llx\n", > + SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr), phy_id, > + SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)); > + sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr(dev, phy_id, last); > > return sas_discover_new(dev, phy_id); > } > Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>
Cheers, Hannes
