On 08/07/12 08:53, Chanho Min wrote: > In addition, Is it ironic that we are careful to use put_device at > scsi_request_fn?. If we trigger the ->remove(), > It occur a oops. What about the removal of unlock/lock as patch bellow? > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c > index 4037fd5..8d9eccd 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c > @@ -1608,11 +1608,7 @@ out_delay: > if (sdev->device_busy == 0) > blk_delay_queue(q, SCSI_QUEUE_DELAY); > out: > - /* must be careful here...if we trigger the ->remove() function > - * we cannot be holding the q lock */ > - spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock); > put_device(&sdev->sdev_gendev); > - spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock); > } As far as I can see the comment in the above code was added before scsi_device_dev_release() was moved to user context, so it might be outdated. See also http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=65110b2168950a19cc78b5027ed18cb811fbdae8. Bart. -- 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
