On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 19:56 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > 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 Oh goodie, I hadn't followed up to see if it was in one of James's later pulls. Thanks for the heads up -- I'll dump scsi_cmd_get_serial() in this patch then. -- 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
