On 12/27/2010 07:49 PM, David Dillow wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 16:31 -0500, David Dillow wrote: >> We don't need protection against the SCSI stack, so use our own lock to >> allow parallel progress on separate CPUs. > >> @@ -1126,7 +1125,7 @@ static int srp_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct scsi_cmnd *scmnd) >> return 0; >> } >> >> - spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags); >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&target->lock, flags); >> /* This goes away once the scsi_eh routines stop testing it. */ >> scsi_cmd_get_serial(shost, scmnd); >> iu = __srp_get_tx_iu(target, SRP_IU_CMD); > > This one may be a bit problematic -- I need to look at the required > locking to avoid a race with the serial number. Of course, there's an > easy fix -- if this patch lands after the patches to remove the serial > number check from the error handler, then there's no reason to get a > serial number in the initiator. > $ git log --oneline -1 linus/master -- drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c 459dbf7 [SCSI] Eliminate error handler overload of the SCSI serial number Cheers -- 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
