On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Brian King wrote: > > How about not acquiring the scan_mutex in scsi_remove_device, and > > insisting that the caller hold it instead? There aren't that many places > > where it gets called. In fact, one of those places (an error pathway in > > scsi_sysfs_add_sdev) looks like it already will cause a deadlock. > > scsi_remove_device is an exported symbol, so requiring the caller to obtain > the scan_mutex prior to calling it would not work. A __scsi_remove_device > could be created, however, which would not grab the scan_mutex so that scsi > core could do the right thing. Okay. How should a host be marked to indicate it's being removed? Add another bit to shost_state? Alan Stern - : 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
