James, Yes, both the place mutex required. Why we did not consider mutex in those places just because of FW events will be off while doing rescan. But by design your suggestion makes more sense. I have modified patch and resent along with other comments for different patches. Thanks, Kashyap -----Original Message----- From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:10 PM To: Desai, Kashyap Cc: linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Moore, Eric; Prakash, Sathya Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] mpt fusion: [2.6.30-rc6] Rescan SAS topology added On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 16:37 +0530, Kashyap, Desai wrote: > @@ -3176,6 +3220,116 @@ mptsas_send_link_status_event(struct fw_event_work *fw_event) > mptsas_free_fw_event(ioc, fw_event); > } > > +static void > +mptsas_not_responding_devices(MPT_ADAPTER *ioc) > +{ > + struct mptsas_portinfo buffer, *port_info; > + struct sas_device_info *sas_info; > + struct mptsas_devinfo sas_device; > + u32 handle; > + VirtTarget *vtarget = NULL; > + struct mptsas_phyinfo *phy_info; > + u8 found_expander; > + int retval, retry_count; > + unsigned long flags; > + > + mpt_findImVolumes(ioc); > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags); > + if (ioc->ioc_reset_in_progress) { > + dfailprintk(ioc, printk(MYIOC_s_DEBUG_FMT > + "%s: exiting due to a parallel reset \n", ioc->name, > + __func__)); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags); > + return; > + } > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags); > + > + /* devices, logical volumes */ > + redo_device_scan: > + list_for_each_entry(sas_info, &ioc->sas_device_info_list, list) { This list is supposed to be protected by the sas_device_info_mutex, isn't it ... where is that taken to protect the traversal? > + sas_device.handle = 0; > + retry_count = 0; > +retry_page: > + retval = mptsas_sas_device_pg0(ioc, &sas_device, > + (MPI_SAS_DEVICE_PGAD_FORM_BUS_TARGET_ID > + << MPI_SAS_DEVICE_PGAD_FORM_SHIFT), > + (sas_info->fw.channel << 8) + > + sas_info->fw.id); > + > + if (sas_device.handle) > + continue; > + if (retval == -EBUSY) { > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags); > + if (ioc->ioc_reset_in_progress) { > + dfailprintk(ioc, > + printk(MYIOC_s_DEBUG_FMT > + "%s: exiting due to reset\n", > + ioc->name, __func__)); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore > + (&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, flags); > + return; > + } > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioc->taskmgmt_lock, > + flags); > + } > + > + if (retval && (retval != -ENODEV)) { > + if (retry_count < 10) { > + retry_count++; > + goto retry_page; > + } else { > + devtprintk(ioc, printk(MYIOC_s_DEBUG_FMT > + "%s: Config page retry exceeded retry " > + "count deleting device 0x%llx\n", > + ioc->name, __func__, > + sas_info->sas_address)); > + } > + } > + > + /* delete device */ > + vtarget = mptsas_find_vtarget(ioc, > + sas_info->fw.channel, sas_info->fw.id); > + if (vtarget) > + vtarget->deleted = 1; > + phy_info = mptsas_find_phyinfo_by_sas_address(ioc, > + sas_info->sas_address); > + if (phy_info) { > + mptsas_del_end_device(ioc, phy_info); > + goto redo_device_scan; > + } > + } > + > + /* expanders */ > + redo_expander_scan: > + list_for_each_entry(port_info, &ioc->sas_topology, list) { And this one is supposed to be protected by the sas_topology_mutex, where is that taken? James -- 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
