James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:19 -0700, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > A side effect of not applying Alan's previous patch that added
> > SHOST_RECOVERY to the SHOST_CANCEL: state is that we will not move to the
> > SHOST_CANCEL a
James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:57 -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > I haven't had time to review the eh changes, but I was going to reply to
> > the other one (basically there's a better way to try to close the device
> > add/host remove race using the host st
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And Mike Anderson's response was
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110538854224319&w=2
>
> His explanation was "Currently scsi_host_cancel being called from
> scsi_remove_host appears to not do anything as scsi_forget_host removes
> the devices
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jan 10 20:49:08 desktop kernel: scsi113 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage
> devices
> Jan 10 20:49:08 desktop kernel: usb-storage: device found at 113
> Jan 10 20:49:08 desktop kernel: usb-storage: waiting for device to settle
> before scanning
> Jan 10
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004, Mike Anderson wrote:
>
> > The LLDD queuecommand should not be called after the return of
> > scsi_remove_host (unless we have a bug). The LLDD should not free its
> > resources until the release function is cal
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This BUG happened because the SCSI layer was still using the drive after
> usb-storage had called scsi_remove_host().
In this case the scsi_remove_host is being called in a unexpected
disconnect case. Any IOs in flight will be canceled in the mid-layer
(i.e.,
PS, I am traveling today so future comments will be delayed a bit.
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All right, let's look at sd.c. I'll show you that _it_ doesn't obey the
> object lifetime rules. In sd_open we see this code (lightly edited):
>
>
> static int sd_open(struct inode
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> = drivers/scsi/sr.c 1.103 vs edited =
> --- 1.103/drivers/scsi/sr.c Fri Apr 2 11:30:44 2004
> +++ edited/drivers/scsi/sr.c Fri Apr 2 17:29:06 2004
> @@ -424,8 +424,19 @@
>
> static int sr_block_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 12:44, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > Where does the last put come from? How do you close the open race or
> > know when the final put_disk has been called? SCSI cannot do this alone
> > as we have created and re
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 11:45, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > Maybe some clarification here as I am unsure if we both think there
> > needs to be a notification (a put call) from outside SCSI. We have
> > release functions available on mos
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Recently I have not been spending the proper time looking at this, but
> > last look it appeared that we needed to add a release / put method call
> > to the gendisk disk_release routine. The release function or object to do
> > the put on would need to
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You can search the lkml archives for the bugs that my kobject patch
> > fixed, as there was some discussion there (otherwise I would have never
> > written the patch...)
>
> I searched and found one thread that looks relevant:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.c
James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well, I know why this happens, but I'm not entirely clear how to fix it.
>
> The problem comes because the cdrom open and close take and release
> references to the SCSI generic device (as they're supposed to).
>
> However, Upper level Drivers like sr
This matches what I thought should be added to sd, but I did not hear an
answer from James / others if this is the way we should handle it.
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Mike Anderson wrote:
>
> > Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
>
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Seeing no sense key, usb-storage returns 0 indicating the command
> succeeded. But scsi_finish_command() sees that valid sense data is
> present and sets the driver_byte to DRIVER_SENSE.
>
> > SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x800
> > Current sda:
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:53:53AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:28:44AM +0200, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > > I see an Oops in the SCSI code, caused by the fact that sdkp is NULL
> > > in sd_shutdown. "How can that be?", you will as
Matthew Dharm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mike --
>
> As far as I can tell, this patch was never accepted. Any idea when this
> will be resolved?
>
> usb-storage is still waiting to implement proper device unplug...
>
I reposted the patch with refreshed offsets for the newer kernel
version.
-a
Matthew Dharm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Right... but I removed the release() function because that was marked (in
> the documentation) as only for the old-style drivers. So I'll need to
> re-introduce it -- but it looks like all it has to do is free some memory.
> Does that sound about right?
Ye
Matthew,
Sorry for the delay in replying (non coding activities are
consuming to many hours).
Matthew Dharm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Okay, I see Linus has now accepted this into his tree. It should propagate
> to the USB development trees soon.
>
> One question: What else is ne
Matthew Dharm [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Any updates on this? I saw some patches, but they don't seem to be in my
> tree (the usb tree, which is synced from Linus' tree).
>
> People are starting to reports OOPSes to me because of this being
> missing
>
> Matt
>
The scsi_set_device_offlin
Sorry Matthew I got side tracked on some issues for the last week. The
scsi_set_device_offline(); function has not been added to any of James
linux-scsi trees. You could add a ifndef in your code until we get the
interface in the tree.
Would scsi_set_device_offline() do more than sdev->online = 0
Luben Tuikov [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Mike Anderson wrote:
> >Doug,
> > I started writing the interface you put forth in your email.
>
> Do you mind clarifying? Either it was a private email, or
> one posted here, in which case there was an interpretation.
I
Alan Stern [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> > >>A LLDD should and must *not* call scsi_unregister_host(). This brakes
> > >>all hierarchy.
> > >
> >
> > What I probably meant is the detect()/release() pair; release() itself
> > normally calls scsi_unregi
Doug,
I started writing the interface you put forth in your email. I
am currently debugging it in UML so I can generate the error
conditions in a control manner. I still have some stuff to look
at in the error handler with it running in this mode as it
previo
Oliver Neukum [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> > 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
Oliver and Alan I am trying to catch up on this thread so I did not
reply directly to your concerns, but I think they are covered below.
Matthew Dharm [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 11:55:36AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > That is simply wrong. Reporting somebody having pul
Oliver Neukum [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2003 21:48 schrieb Mike Anderson:
> > David Brownell [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > Have any of the SCSI people been looking much at SCSI hotplug on 2.5?
> > > I attach "/etc/hotplug/scsi.agent&
David Brownell [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Have any of the SCSI people been looking much at SCSI hotplug on 2.5?
> I attach "/etc/hotplug/scsi.agent" from one of my desktops; all it
> does is make sure the right drivers are loaded, it doesn't have a
> clue yet about whether/how/where to mount disk
28 matches
Mail list logo
