On 06/25/13 18:13, Michael Christie wrote:
On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org wrote:
On 06/25/13 15:45, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
There is a difference though between moving the EH kthread_stop() call
and the
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 20:46 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 06/25/13 18:13, Michael Christie wrote:
On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org wrote:
On 06/25/13 15:45, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
There is a
On 01/31/14 06:58, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 20:46 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 06/25/13 18:13, Michael Christie wrote:
Sorry but I'm afraid that making the SCSI core invoke a callback
function from a device, target or host release function would create a
new challenge,
On 06/25/13 00:27, James Bottomley wrote:
For a variety of reasons this patch set is incredibly hard to review:
Almost every patch touches pieces in the mid layer where you have to be
sure in minute detail you know what's going on (and what should be going
on), so usually it's a couple of hours
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 06/25/13 00:27, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 15:04 -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
On 06/24/2013 02:19 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:55 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
A SCSI LLD may start
On 06/25/13 15:45, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
There is a difference though between moving the EH kthread_stop() call
and the patch at the start of this thread: moving the EH kthread_stop()
call does not prevent that an ioctl like
On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org wrote:
On 06/25/13 15:45, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
There is a difference though between moving the EH kthread_stop() call
and the patch at the start of this thread: moving
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:13 -0500, Michael Christie wrote:
On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org wrote:
On 06/25/13 15:45, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 11:01 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
There is a difference though between moving the EH
On 06/25/13 19:40, James Bottomley wrote:
If I look at what we actually do: all the HBAs treat scsi_remove_host as
a waited for transition. The reason this works is the loop over
__scsi_remove_device() in scsi_forget_host(). By the time that loop
returns, every scsi_device is gone (and so is
On 06/24/13 03:15, Mike Christie wrote:
On 6/12/13 7:55 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
A SCSI LLD may start cleaning up host resources as soon as
scsi_remove_host() returns. These host resources may be needed by
the LLD in an implementation of one of the eh_* functions. So if
one of the eh_*
@@ -646,14 +703,20 @@ static int scsi_try_target_reset(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
static int scsi_try_bus_device_reset(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
{
int rtn;
- struct scsi_host_template *hostt = scmd-device-host-hostt;
+ struct Scsi_Host *host = scmd-device-host;
+
On 06/24/13 12:17, Jack Wang wrote:
@@ -646,14 +703,20 @@ static int scsi_try_target_reset(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
static int scsi_try_bus_device_reset(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
{
int rtn;
- struct scsi_host_template *hostt = scmd-device-host-hostt;
+ struct Scsi_Host
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:55 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
A SCSI LLD may start cleaning up host resources as soon as
scsi_remove_host() returns. These host resources may be needed by
the LLD in an implementation of one of the eh_* functions. So if
one of the eh_* functions is in progress when
On 06/24/2013 02:19 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 14:55 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
A SCSI LLD may start cleaning up host resources as soon as
scsi_remove_host() returns. These host resources may be needed by
the LLD in an implementation of one of the eh_* functions. So if
On 06/24/2013 05:27 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
However, what's the reasoning behind wanting to do this? In theory all
necessary resources for the eh thread should only be freed in the
release callback. That means they aren't freed until all error recovery
completes.
I think it makes it
On Jun 24, 2013, at 9:26 PM, Mike Christie micha...@cs.wisc.edu wrote:
On 06/24/2013 05:27 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
However, what's the reasoning behind wanting to do this? In theory all
necessary resources for the eh thread should only be freed in the
release callback. That means they
On 6/12/13 7:55 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
A SCSI LLD may start cleaning up host resources as soon as
scsi_remove_host() returns. These host resources may be needed by
the LLD in an implementation of one of the eh_* functions. So if
one of the eh_* functions is in progress when
A SCSI LLD may start cleaning up host resources as soon as
scsi_remove_host() returns. These host resources may be needed by
the LLD in an implementation of one of the eh_* functions. So if
one of the eh_* functions is in progress when scsi_remove_host()
is invoked, wait until the eh_* function
18 matches
Mail list logo
