Re: [PATCH 1/4] scsi: core: constify pointer to scsi_host_template

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

 



On 06/05/2022 17:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
I don't think scsi_Host is appropriate as this is per-scsi host
template, unless you see a way to do it that way. Alternatively we could
keep a separate list of registered sht, like this:

struct sht_proc_dir {
	int cnt;
	struct list_head list;
	struct proc_dir_entry *proc_dir;
	struct scsi_host_template *sht;
};
static LIST_HEAD(sht_proc_dir_list);
Hi everyone,


Hi Krzysztof,

It took me some time to get back to this topic. I moved the proc_dir out
of SHT, how John proposed. Patches do not look that bad:
The commit:
https://github.com/krzk/linux/commit/157eb2ee8867afbae9dac3836e4c0bedb542e5c1


For some reason I cannot fetch your git due to "error: RPC failed ..." which I think is a timeout. I seem to have this problem recently whenever a linux.git clone has branches based on linux-next.git . Maybe a git config issue for me...

Branch:
https://github.com/krzk/linux/commits/n/qcom-ufs-opp-cleanups-v2

However this does not solve the problem. The SHT has "module" which gets
incremented/decremented. Exactly like in case of other drivers
(driver->owner).

Ah, I missed that this could be a problem. So we have this member to stop the SCSI host driver being removed when we have disks mounted, etc.

But isn't scsi_host_template.module just a pointer to the local driver module data (and that data gets incremented/decremented)? I am looking at the THIS_MODULE definition in export.h:

extern stuct module __this_module;
#define THIS_MODULE(&__this_module)

However I do see scsi_device_dev_release(), which does:

sdp->host->hostt->module = NULL

I am not sure how necessary that really is. I would need to check further.

Did you see if there other places which set hostt->module dynamically?


I started moving the SHT->module to a new field scsi_host->owner and
trying to use the parent's driver (so PCI, USB) owner.
I am not sure if it is correct approach, so before implementing such big
change affecting multiple subsystems (USB, ATA, SCSI) - can you share
ideas/opinion?

The Work-in-Progress looks like this (last commit):
https://github.com/krzk/linux/commit/17609caecd53df20f631703ea084a70e7735b5d7

Thanks,
John



[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