Re: [patch 14/28] scsi: fix CONFIG_SCSI_WAIT_SCAN=m

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

 



On Fri, 11 May 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > CONFIG_MODULES=y
> > CONFIG_SCSI=y
> > CONFIG_SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC=y
> > CONFIG_SCSI_WAIT_SCAN=m
> > 
> > 2.6.21-rc5-mm2 VFS panics unable to find my root on /dev/sda2, but boots
> > okay if I change drivers/scsi/Kconfig to "default y" instead of "default m"
> > for SCSI_WAIT_SCAN.
> > 
> > Make sure there's a late_initcall to scsi_complete_async_scans when it's
> > built in, so a monolithic SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC kernel can rely on the scans
> > being completed before trying to mount root, even if they're slow.
> 
> Thanks for sending this through to James again, Andrew.
> I'd been gearing up to report it to the regression police:
> it's certainly still a problem in 2.6.21-git.

And still a problem in 2.6.22-rc1-git7.

Any further news on this regression since 2.6.21?  I was hoping that
a fix for 2.6.22-rc2 would emerge in the course of the "Asynchronous
scsi scanning" thread, but that doesn't appear to be heading in any
useful direction.

It wouldn't be a problem for me to undo my CONFIG_SCSI_SCAN_ASYNC=y,
but it would still be a little regressive.

I thought a late_initcall was guaranteed to be called after
all the potential-root scsi scans had been started; but admit I'm
ignorant of both initcall sequencing and scsi probing.  Would a
late_initcall_sync or a rootfs_initcall be more to the point?

But ignore my gropings, I'd rather be testing what you believe
to be the right fix.

Thanks,
Hugh

> 
> > 
> > [akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: build fixes]
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > James sayeth "This isn't the right fix ...  this has to be invoked last in the
> > call sequence ...  I can't see another way of doing this except yet another
> > file added as a final component to the link."
> 
> I didn't reply to James' mail at the time, hoping "the right fix" was
> about to follow.  I don't see what's wrong with the late_initcall myself.
> 
> Hugh
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c |    9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff -puN drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c~scsi-fix-config_scsi_wait_scan=m drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c~scsi-fix-config_scsi_wait_scan=m
> > +++ a/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> > @@ -184,6 +184,15 @@ int scsi_complete_async_scans(void)
> >  /* Only exported for the benefit of scsi_wait_scan */
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(scsi_complete_async_scans);
> >  
> > +#ifndef MODULE
> > +/*
> > + * For async scanning we need to wait for all the scans to complete before
> > + * trying to mount the root fs.  Otherwise non-modular drivers may not be ready
> > + * yet.
> > + */
> > +late_initcall(scsi_complete_async_scans);
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * scsi_unlock_floptical - unlock device via a special MODE SENSE command
> >   * @sdev:	scsi device to send command to
> > _
-
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

[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