Re: [PATCH 1/2] Ensure that the SCSI error handler gets woken up

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 09:45 +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
> 
> > +	if (shost_state != shost->shost_state) {
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
> > +		synchronize_rcu();
> > +		spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
> > +	}
> 
> Plese correct me if I'm wrong, but once you drop the host lock all
> assumptions about states it protects are void, aren't they? 

Hello Johannes,

That's a good question. I think it is safe to drop the host lock at that point
because waking up the error handler thread will only happen after host_failed
has been incremented.

Bart.




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux