On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 18:40 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > OK, I'll take a look at how you handle this...
>
> So looking at commit bc187ea6c3b3 in the tree you just pushed out
> ("target: Check sess_tearing_down in target_get_sess_cmd()") it looks
> like you just return from target_submit_cmd() if we fail to add the
> command to sess_cmd_list -- doesn't this mean we just leak those
> commands and possibly leave the HW sitting there with open exchanges?
>
With dropping patch #5 for now, I assume that would be the case..
> Do you have a plan for how to handle this? Do we really want to plumb
> through another callback to tell the fabric driver to free the command
> in this case?
>
I need to think more about this ahead of changing it back again for-3.6
now that other fabrics have the assumption of target_submit_cmd() would
not fail.
There is a clear case with qla2xxx for just changing it back (we might
end up doing that just yet) but I wanted to get the other important bits
into for-next into place first..
--
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
