Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 07:52:57PM -0400, Takahiro Yasui wrote: >> James Bottomley wrote: >>>> + if (sdev->sdev_state != SDEV_BLOCK) >>> This isn't quite correct. There are two blocked states in the model >>> currently: SDEV_BLOCK and SDEV_CREATED_BLOCK ... you'd need to check >>> for both of them >>> >>>> + return 0; >>> Traditionally the return for an attempted invalid state transition is >>> -EINVAL. >>> >>> I suppose for lower down, if you check the state, now we know we go >>> >>> SDEV_CREATED_BLOCK -> SDEV_CREATED >>> >>> or >>> >>> SDEV_BLOCK -> SDEV_RUNNING >>> >>> so there's no need for the dual scsi_device_set_state. >> Thank you for the comments. If I understand your comments correctly, >> the state transition is better to be defined in scsi_device_set_state(), >> and both transitions, "SDEV_CREATED_BLOCK -> SDEV_CREATED" and >> "SDEV_BLOCK -> SDEV_RUNNING" need to be covered. I updated the patch >> so that the transition of "SDEV_OFFLINE -> SDEV_RUNNING" is prohibited. > > I don't think that's what he meant. I think he meant something more like: Thanks a lot. I'll build a patch and send it. Regards, --- Takahiro Yasui Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. -- 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
