On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 12:20 +0800, jianchao.wang wrote: > Do you think we should provide more guarantee when setting sdev state through > sysfs ? > > In the current implementation, store_state_field does nothing but just modify > state. > > For example, when we set state to 'blocked', it cannot ensure the tasks that > has escaped > the checking of state in scsi_queue_rq has quit, when we return from the > sysfs.
I would like to know which real workloads store "blocked" in this sysfs attribute. If there are no such workloads, I would prefer no longer to allow "blocked" being written in this sysfs attribute rather than making the implementation more complex. Thanks, Bart.
