On 12/27/2010 08:01 PM, David Dillow wrote: > 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. > Are these base on James's trees? Or are you maintaining these scsi bits yourself? Also CC: Nicholas A. Bellinger just in case he has a matching patch in his luckless tree. Thanks Boaz -- 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
