Hello, On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:42:28AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Good question. As far as I can see calling request_queue.request_fn() is > fine as long as the caller holds a reference on the queue. If e.g. > scsi_request_fn() would get invoked after blk_drain_queue() finished it > will return immediately because it was invoked with an empty request > queue. So we should be fine as long as all blk_run_queue() callers > either hold a reference on the request queue itself or on the sdev that > owns the request queue. As far as I can see if patch > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=134453905402413 gets accepted then all > callers in the SCSI core of blk_run_queue() will hold a (direct or > indirect) reference on the request_queue before invoking blk_run_queue() > or __blk_run_queue(). It's been quite a while since I really looked through the code and I'm feeling a bit dense but what you describe seems like a two-pronged approach where the drain stalling, when properly done, should be enough. The problem at hand IIUC is ->request_fn() being invoked when request_queue itself is alive but the underlying driver is gone. We already make sure that a new request is not queued once drain is complete but there's no guarantee about calling into ->request_fn() and this is what you want to fix, right? I think this is something which the block layer proper should handle correctly and expose sane interface. ie. if the caller has request_queue reference, it should be safe to call __blk_run_queue() no matter what. As long as SCSI follows proper shutdown procedure, it shouldn't need to worry about this. Am I hopelessly confused somewhere? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
