----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Laurence Oberman" <loberman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Johannes Thumshirn"
> <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 1:16:52 PM
> Subject: Re: dm-mq and end_clone_request()
>
> On 08/09/2016 10:12 AM, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> > I was talking about this patch
> >
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> > @@ -1890,10 +1890,11 @@ void scsi_forget_host(struct Scsi_Host *shost)
> > restart:
> > spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
> > list_for_each_entry(sdev, &shost->__devices, siblings) {
> > - if (sdev->sdev_state == SDEV_DEL)
> > + if (sdev->sdev_state == SDEV_DEL || scsi_device_get(sdev)
> > < 0)
> > continue;
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
> > __scsi_remove_device(sdev);
> > + scsi_device_put(sdev);
> > goto restart;
> > }
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
>
> Hello Laurence,
>
> Did you run your tests with that patch applied? If so, it would help if
> you could rerun your tests without that patch. If the above patch makes
> a difference it means that it can happen that __scsi_remove_device()
> does not change the device state into SDEV_DEL. That's a bug and we need
> to know whether or not __scsi_remove_device() behaves correctly.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>
Yes Sir, I ran all yesterdays tests on your kernel with that patch applied.
Of course it may well just be luck/coincidence that the host delete race is no longer happening
so I agree we need to re-run the tests so I will revert and re-run.
I will probably only get back to you tomorrow with the results.
Thanks
Laurence
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
