On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:04:06PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > This objection runs up against an issue we discussed some time ago. > > Should the intended meaning of scsi_remove_host be simply that the kernel > > needs to stop using the HBA reasonably soon? In that case you are right. > > Or should the intended meaning be that the HBA is actually gone > > (hot-unplugged) and all further attempts to use it will fail? In that > > case it doesn't matter. The best ways to resolve this issue may be to > > have a separate scsi_host_gone routine or to add an extra argument to > > scsi_remove_host. > > It must mean both because we don't know whether a hot unplug happened or > not. The ->remove callbacks don't tell us. I would describe it differently: Since you don't know whether a hot-unplug occurred, you might as well assume it did not. There's no harm in this, because if the HBA really was unplugged then it doesn't matter what you do; everything will fail. But those sd flush-cache commands are a problem. Presumably you want to send them _after_ all the outstanding commands have finished or been cancelled. What's the right way to allow those commands while rejecting all others? 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
