shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock, otherwise the check
of "called twice" won't work.
Signed-off-by: Ouyang Zhaowei
---
drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock, otherwise the check
of "called twice" won't work.
Signed-off-by: Ouyang Zhaowei
---
drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
index
1;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
@@ -1751,6 +1751,8 @@ static struct async_scan_data
*scsi_prep_async_scan(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
err:
kfree(data);
+ unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(>scan_mutex);
return NULL;
}
On 2017.9.11 9:44, Tyrel Datwyler
estore(shost->host_lock, flags);
@@ -1751,6 +1751,8 @@ static struct async_scan_data
*scsi_prep_async_scan(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
err:
kfree(data);
+ unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(>scan_mutex);
return NULL;
}
On 2017.9.11 9:44, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 09/07/2017 11:54 PM
shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock, otherwise the check
of "called twice" won't work.
Signed-off-by: Ouyang Zhaowei
---
drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
shost->async_scan should be protected by mutex_lock, otherwise the check
of "called twice" won't work.
Signed-off-by: Ouyang Zhaowei
---
drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
index
On 2016/1/4 19:54, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 29/12/15 05:49, Ouyangzhaowei (Charles) wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> This patch has been applied to for-linus-4.1b, and we wonder if this patch
>> will be applied to linux kernel, or does
>> it still needs more test to
On 2016/1/4 19:54, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 29/12/15 05:49, Ouyangzhaowei (Charles) wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> This patch has been applied to for-linus-4.1b, and we wonder if this patch
>> will be applied to linux kernel, or does
>> it still needs more test to
Hi David,
This patch has been applied to for-linus-4.1b, and we wonder if this patch will
be applied to linux kernel, or does
it still needs more test to apply to linux kernel?
thanks
On 2015.5.28 19:07, David Vrabel wrote:
>> vcpu_info would be reset to wrong place on canceled suspend on
Hi David,
This patch has been applied to for-linus-4.1b, and we wonder if this patch will
be applied to linux kernel, or does
it still needs more test to apply to linux kernel?
thanks
On 2015.5.28 19:07, David Vrabel wrote:
>> vcpu_info would be reset to wrong place on canceled suspend on
10 matches
Mail list logo