> In a separate discussion with Mike, he mentioned that you can't
> scsi_remove_device() unless there are no pending commands.
>
> How the hell is an LLD supposed to assure that!?!?
>
> The minute I error a command and call scsi_done(), I can get a new one.
> Unless I lock out requests with scsi_block_requests(), but that comes with
> major warnings about needing to get unblocked.
If I understand the scsi code correctly, doing that will result in a memory
leak at least. Perhaps exporting a function to declare a host's devices
offline might do the trick. But as yet I havn't found out where the scsi layer
actually checks that flag.
> The way this should work is that the LLD calls scsi_remove_device(), and
> that cuts off the flow of commands. The LLD can promise to error-out any
> pending commands in the device command queue.
>
> That is, unless scsi_block_requests() and scsi_unblock_requests() are more
> useful than the documentation suggests... block(), error all commands,
> unregister()... that would make some sense. We could call
> scsi_block_request() as soon as we know the unit is gone, and unregister()
> as soon as the queue is empty.
Sounds reasonable.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com - A 128-bit supercerts will
allow you to extend the highest allowed 128 bit encryption to all your
clients even if they use browsers that are limited to 40 bit encryption.
Get a guide here:http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0030en
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
