On Sat, Nov 04 2006, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> --- Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03 2006, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > > ... at device removal.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 10 +++++++---
> > > drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 1 +
> > > include/scsi/scsi_device.h | 3 +++
> > > 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > index 7b0f9a3..f0de7ca 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > @@ -1302,9 +1302,13 @@ static int scsi_prep_fn(struct request_q
> > > if(specials_only == SDEV_QUIESCE ||
> > > specials_only == SDEV_BLOCK)
> > > goto defer;
> > > -
> > > - sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev,
> > > - "rejecting I/O to device being removed\n");
> > > +
> > > + if (sdev->num_rej_messages > 0) {
> > > + sdev->num_rej_messages--;
> > > + sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev,
> > > + "rejecting I/O to device "
> > > + "being removed\n");
> > > + }
> >
> > How about using some variant of printk_ratelimit() instead?
>
> Jens, I didn't think to use such a heavy-weight as printk_ratelimit()
> (grabbing irq spinlocks et al), since the device struct would be
> "freed" shortly. FWIW, one message is more than enough. I'm being
> liberal with 5, but would gladly revert it back to the original
> of one message.
It's a printk, it doesn't matter how heavy weight it is. Just seems
silly to re-invent some sort of printk limiter, when one already exists.
> Feel free to resubmit using printk_ratelimit().
Sorry no plans to do that, I'll let James decide what he wants to take
or not.
--
Jens Axboe
-
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
