On 11/09/2011 12:53 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Hannes Reinecke<hare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
When we tear down a device we try to flush all outstanding
commands in scsi_free_queue(). However the check in
scsi_request_fn() is imperfect as it only signals that
we _might start_ aborting commands, not that we've actually
aborted some.
So move the printk inside the scsi_kill_request function,
this will also give us a hint about which commands are aborted.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke<hare@xxxxxxx>
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
index 06bc265..f85cfa6 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
@@ -1409,6 +1409,8 @@ static void scsi_kill_request(struct request *req, struct request_queue *q)
blk_start_request(req);
+ scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, cmd, "killing request\n");
+
sdev = cmd->device;
starget = scsi_target(sdev);
shost = sdev->host;
@@ -1490,7 +1492,6 @@ static void scsi_request_fn(struct request_queue *q)
struct request *req;
if (!sdev) {
- printk("scsi: killing requests for dead queue\n");
while ((req = blk_peek_request(q)) != NULL)
scsi_kill_request(req, q);
return;
Can this message appear during LUN scanning and hence confuse users ?
Precisely.
Which incidentally also tells us that none of the maintainer tested
the original patch on SCSI parallel machines :-)
Also, patch 3308511 is already present in several stable trees so
shouldn't a patch like the above CC stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx too ?
Oh. Of course.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
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
