Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] scsi: simplify scsi_stop_queue()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 09:39 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 6/7/23 08:38, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 07:05 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 6/7/23 02:26, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 07:27 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 09:38:45PM +0200,
> > > > > mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > >    scsi_target_block(struct device *dev)
> > > > > >    {
> > > > > > +       struct Scsi_Host *shost = dev_to_shost(dev);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >           if (scsi_is_target_device(dev))
> > > > > >                   starget_for_each_device(to_scsi_target(de
> > > > > > v),
> > > > > > NULL,
> > > > > >                                           device_block);
> > > > > >           else
> > > > > >                   device_for_each_child(dev, NULL,
> > > > > > target_block);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       /* Wait for ongoing scsi_queue_rq() calls to
> > > > > > finish. */
> > > > > > +       if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!shost))
> > > > > 
> > > > > How could host ever be NULL here?  I can't see why we'd want
> > > > > this
> > > > > check.
> > > > 
> > > > The reason is simple: I wasn't certain if dev_to_shost() could
> > > > return
> > > > NULL, and preferred skipping the wait over an Oops. I hear you
> > > > say
> > > > that
> > > > dev_to_shost() can't go wrong, so I'll remove the NULL test.
> > > 
> > > I propose to pass shost as the first argument to
> > > scsi_target_block()
> > > instead of using dev_to_shost() inside scsi_target_block().
> > > Except in
> > > __iscsi_block_session(), shost is already available as a local
> > > variable.
> > 
> > If we do this, it might actually be cleaner to just pass the tag
> > set to
> > wait for.
> 
> Wouldn't that be close to a layering violation? Shouldn't SCSI APIs
> accept
> pointers to SCSI objects instead of pointers to block layer
> abstractions?

My thought was that quiescing is based on tag sets in current kernels,
and passing in the tag set to scsi_target_block() would make that
explicit.

But you've got a point. I'll resubmit the with a Scsi_Host argument and
see how it goes.

Thanks,
Martin





[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux