On 02/11/2010 05:54 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
It seems like you would want to do
Maybe one more fix.
qla4xxx_wait_for_hba_online()
spin_lock_irqsave(&ha->hardware_lock, flags);
srb = (struct srb *) cmd->SCp.ptr;
if (!srb)
/* raced while waiting for hba online */
return SUCCESS;
/* Get a reference to the sp and drop the lock.*/
sp_get(srb);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ha->hardware_lock, flags);
qla4xxx_abort_task()
From what I can tell, we used to call qla4xxx_srb_compl (and now do the
final sp_put in the normal completion path) while holding the
hardware_lock. If this is not the case then the loop in the eh abort
patch is racey and my pseudo code above is too).
If I am right, then I think here we want to do
spin_lock_irqsave(&ha->hardware_lock, flags);
sp_put(ha, srb);
So it is consistent with the other code, and then I think we want to add
a comment in sp_put() that we should be holing the hardware_lock when
calling it.
sp_put(ha, srb)
spin_lock_irqsave(&ha->hardware_lock, flags);
qla4xxx_eh_wait_on_command(ha, cmd);
--
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
--
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
