On 3/8/17, 7:20 AM, "Bart Van Assche" <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 23:34 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: >> Btw, the regression reported here in v2: >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg14348.html >> >> is completely different from what you've reported here. > >The call traces differ but the root cause is probably the same. > >> It would be useful to explain how you reproduced this, instead of just >> posting backtrace with zero context..? >> >> Can we at least identify which patch in this series is causing this..? >> >> Also, I assume you are running this on stock v4.11-rc1 with only this >> qla2xxx series applied, and not all of your other stuff, right..? > >The test I ran against v4.11-rc1 + this patch series is to start LIO on a >system equipped with two back-to-back connected QLogic FC HBAs (no switch >inbetween), to load the tcm_qla2xxx driver, to configure LUNs and to wait >until the SCSI stack reports that these LUNs have appeared. What I see in >the lsscsi output with both v2 and v3 of this patch series is that these >LUNs appear briefly and then disappear and that a little bit later the >kernel reports that a hang occurred. Without this patch series the LUNs >are >detected and do not disappear automatically and no hang is reported. I >think the next step is that Cavium verifies whether they can reproduce >this >behavior and if they can reproduce it to run a bisect. BTW, since there >are >login-related patches in this series I wouldn't be surprised if one of >these >patches introduced the regression. We generally go through switch. We will try to reproduce with back to back and bisect the patches. ‹ Giri > >Bart.
