On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 17:33 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, James Bottomley wrote: > > > Yes ... really the only case for unprep is when we've partially released > > > the command (like in scsi_io_completion) where we need to tear the rest > > > of it down. > > > > In other words, in scsi_requeue_command and nowhere else. > > Pretty much, yes. > > > Or will be prepared for the first time, as in scsi_execute. As far as I > > can tell, a new struct request is not set to all 0's. So if you queue a > > request with REQ_SPECIAL set and you fail to clear req->special, you're in > > trouble. Do you have any idea why this hasn't been causing errors all > > along? > > That's true, it's not. However ll_rq_blk.c:rq_init() clears req- > >special (and initialises all other important fields). (*Sigh*... I'm trying to do this too fast, not following up properly on all the code paths.) Okay, good, glad to hear it. > > Okay, then how does this patch look (moved the routine over to where it > > gets used, plus two real changes)? > > Well ... under pressure to fix this in -mm, I already commited a version > to rc-fixes. What I did was fully reverse the changes to the > scsi_insert_queue() [the patch I sent Anton]. We can move the unprep > function if you feel strongly about it, but I'm also happy to keep it > where it is. I don't care where the function goes, so just leave it. That leaves only the question of the call to scsi_unprep_request near the end of scsi_request_fn, in the not_ready: section. Looks like that call isn't needed and can be taken out also, do you agree? 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
