On 07/25/2017 04:14 PM, Steffen Maier wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Steffen Maier <maier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c
> index 05c823ccb959..8e96196fa877 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_scsi.c
> @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static int zfcp_task_mgmt_function(struct scsi_cmnd *scpnt, u8 tm_flags)
> break;
>
> zfcp_erp_wait(adapter);
> - ret = fc_block_scsi_eh(scpnt);
> + ret = port->rport ? fc_block_rport(port->rport) : 0;
> if (ret) {
> zfcp_dbf_scsi_devreset("fiof", adapter, tm_flags, NULL,
> scsi_id, scsi_lun);> @@ -337,11 +337,13 @@ static int
zfcp_scsi_eh_host_reset_handler(struct scsi_cmnd *scpnt)
> {
> struct zfcp_scsi_dev *zfcp_sdev = sdev_to_zfcp(scpnt->device);
> struct zfcp_adapter *adapter = zfcp_sdev->port->adapter;
> + struct zfcp_port *port;
> int ret;
>
> zfcp_erp_adapter_reopen(adapter, 0, "schrh_1");
> zfcp_erp_wait(adapter);
> - ret = fc_block_scsi_eh(scpnt);
> + port = zfcp_sdev->port;
> + ret = port->rport ? fc_block_rport(port->rport) : 0;
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
>
Hmm. So there is a chance where ->rport is simply NULL, in which case we
won't be calling fc_block_rport().
However, we _do_ continue with TMF even then.
Wasn't that precisely the point of fc_block_rport() to figure out if the
rport is valid?
So shouldn't we rather return FAILED or something here?
If not, why do we continue sending TMFs to a non-existing port?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
