On 2019/5/20 18:54, John Garry wrote:
On 18/05/2019 10:40, Jason Yan wrote:
Since we are processing events synchronously now, the second call of
sas_ex_join_wide_port() in sas_ex_discover_dev() is not needed. There
will be no races with other works in disco workqueue. So remove the
second sas_ex_join_wide_port().
I did not change the return value of 'res' to error when discover failed
because we need to continue to discover other phys if one phy discover
failed. So let's keep that logic as before and just add a debug log to
detect the failure.
Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c | 24 +++---------------------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
index 83f2fd70ce76..8f90dd497dfe 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
@@ -1116,27 +1116,9 @@ static int sas_ex_discover_dev(struct
domain_device *dev, int phy_id)
break;
}
- if (child) {
- int i;
-
- for (i = 0; i < ex->num_phys; i++) {
- if (ex->ex_phy[i].phy_state == PHY_VACANT ||
- ex->ex_phy[i].phy_state == PHY_NOT_PRESENT)
- continue;
- /*
- * Due to races, the phy might not get added to the
- * wide port, so we add the phy to the wide port here.
- */
- if (SAS_ADDR(ex->ex_phy[i].attached_sas_addr) ==
- SAS_ADDR(child->sas_addr)) {
- ex->ex_phy[i].phy_state= PHY_DEVICE_DISCOVERED;
- if (sas_ex_join_wide_port(dev, i))
- pr_debug("Attaching ex phy%02d to wide port
%016llx\n",
- i, SAS_ADDR(ex->ex_phy[i].attached_sas_addr));
- }
- }
- }
This change looks ok.
-
+ if (!child)
+ pr_debug("Ex %016llx phy%02d failed to discover\n",
+ SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr), phy_id);
nit:
/s/Ex/ex/
OK.
In case of "second fanout expander...", before this, we don't attempt to
discover, and just disable the PHY. In that case, is the log proper?
In that case the log is not proper. I think we can directly return in
the case of "second fanout expander..."? Actually nothing to do after
the phy is disabled.
And, if indeed proper, it would seem to merit a higher log level than
debug, maybe notice is better.
Yes, notice should be better.
return res;
}
.
