eh_abort_handler implementations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi all,

as you might know, I'm trying to revamp the eh_abort_handler
implementation by sending command aborts directly whenever
the timeout triggers, without entering SCSI EH.

So, during testing where the remote port is disabled I've seen this:

[  864.734937] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-8802:1: Aborting from RISC
nexus=1:0:0 sp=ffff880225b0dd40 cmd=ffff8802248d76c0
[  864.737274] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-1800:1: Entered
qla2x00_mailbox_command.
[  864.738720] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-1806:1: Prepare to issue mbox
cmd=0x54.
[  864.740268] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-180f:1: Going to unlock irq &
waiting for interrupts. jiffies=100022781.
[  864.740574] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-1814:1: Cmd=54 completed.
[  864.740596] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-3822:1: FCP command status:
0x5-0x0 (0x80000) nexus=1:0:0 portid=691400 oxid=0x38e
cdb=28000000000000000800 len=0x1000 rsp_info=0x0 resid=0x0 fw_resid=0x0.
[  864.740608] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-1821:1: Done
qla2x00_mailbox_command.
[  864.740615] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-8804:1: Abort command mbx
success cmd=ffff8802248d76c0.
[  864.740631] qla2xxx [0000:41:00.0]-801c:1: Abort command issued
nexus=1:0:0 --  2002.

Again, the port is disabled, so the TMF _cannot_ be received by the
remote port, let alone processed.
But still the command abort is processed correctly and the command
is returned to the upper layers.
So with the current thinking the command abort was successful, and
EH would exit, as the remote port was assumed to be working.
But most evidently the remote port is _still_ not reachable, so the
TMF _should_ have returned 'FAILED'.
At least that's what we expect.
But it looks as if this expectation is slightly skewed, as most
likely a successful ABORT TASK TMF just means that the command was
terminated, not that the remote port itself was working.

If _that_ should be the case it looks as if we _always_ should be
issuing a RESET LUN TMF whenever command aborts have been processed.
Would that be correct?

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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux