Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> res = scsi_probe_and_add_lun(starget, 0, &bflags, &sdev, rescan, NULL);
>>- if (res == SCSI_SCAN_LUN_PRESENT) {
>>- if (scsi_report_lun_scan(sdev, bflags, rescan) != 0)
>>+ if (res != SCSI_SCAN_NO_RESPONSE) {
>>+ if (scsi_report_lun_scan(sdev, bflags, rescan) != 0) {
>> /*
>> * The REPORT LUN did not scan the target,
>> * do a sequential scan.
>> */
>>+ if (res == SCSI_SCAN_TARGET_PRESENT)
>>+ /*
>>+ * There's a target here, but lun 0 is
>>+ * offline so we can't use the report_lun
>>+ * scan. Fall back to a sequential lun scan
>>+ * with a bflags of SPARSELUN.
>>+ *
>>+ * The old code also used a default scsi level
>>+ * of SCSI_2 which seems a bit spurious. Any
>>+ * misbehaving device should rather be added
>>+ * to the blacklist.
>>+ */
>>+ bflags |= BLIST_SPARSELUN;
>>+
>> scsi_sequential_lun_scan(starget, bflags,
>> res, sdev->scsi_level, rescan);
>
> If scsi_probe_and_add_lun returns SCSI_SCAN_TARGET_PRESENT sdev isn't valid at
> this point. You should probably default to SCSI_2 for that case.
>
How so? This is exactly the behaviour I've removed. sdev is valid even
for SCSI_SCAN_TARGET_PRESENT.
If not please show me.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke hare@xxxxxxx
SuSE Linux AG S390 & zSeries
Maxfeldstraße 5 +49 911 74053 688
90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
