I'm sorry. In my zeal to push out this patch I have done a poor job of
communication on a number of levels.
The first patch which deals with the fc transport changes will not set
the scsi_transport_template.eh_timed_out function directly during
lightweight fc_attach_transport(). It instead relies on whatever was
indicated as the scsi_host_template timeout handler during
inscsi_times_out() scsi_error.c.
So yes in a sense it is related but now I believe I understand your
point. Perhaps this would fall more under the heading of post
fc_transport implementation storvsc cleanup necessitating its own patch.
I will break it out in the next go round.
Thanks,
Cathy
On 01/20/2017 04:31 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:55:27PM -0500, Cathy Avery wrote:
On 01/18/2017 06:15 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:28:58PM -0500, Cathy Avery wrote:
Enable FC lightweight host option so that the luns exposed by
the driver may be manually scanned.
Signed-off-by: Cathy Avery <cavery@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c | 6 +-----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c b/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c
index 888e16e..fc1d6ba 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/storvsc_drv.c
@@ -1882,6 +1882,7 @@ static struct hv_driver storvsc_drv = {
static struct fc_function_template fc_transport_functions = {
.show_host_node_name = 1,
.show_host_port_name = 1,
+ .lightweight_transport = 1,
};
#endif
@@ -1906,11 +1907,6 @@ static int __init storvsc_drv_init(void)
fc_transport_template = fc_attach_transport(&fc_transport_functions);
if (!fc_transport_template)
return -ENODEV;
-
- /*
- * Install Hyper-V specific timeout handler.
- */
- fc_transport_template->eh_timed_out = storvsc_eh_timed_out;
I don't undestand how removing this is related.
Its not related but it is also not necessary so I took it out. The
default scsi timeout handler will be used.
I can certainly put it back.
I'm not sure that we understand each other properly.
Has this patch already been committed? If so, then there is no need to
put it back.
But it if hasn't been committed, can you resend the patches with that
bit broken out into a separate patch with its own changelog? Patches
should only do one thing but you're saying that it's doing two
unrelated things.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
