On Tue, 2 July 2013 16:33:40 +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 10:58 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > > On Tue, 2 July 2013 06:37:05 +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > I don't understand what you're getting at. In a dual HBA situation, > > > whether the second HBA is implicated or not depends on configuration and > > > what the first HBA is doing. If it's just passively lost device state, > > > then the second HBA should continue just fine. If the insane HBA is > > > > If the problem is an insane drive instead of an insane HBA, both HBAs > > will be in roughly the same state at roughly the same time - assuming > > they both send commands to the insane drive. If they now go into > > error handling and effectively shut off all the sane drives at roughly > > the same time, the user is ****ed. > > That's handled in device reset, so I don't understand your point. Doesn't a device reset require all IO to the entire HBA to stop? Hannes patches fixed that for aborts, but not for device reset yet, afaics. Jörn -- In America you can have either a flimsy box banged together out of two by fours and drywall, or a McMansion -- a flimsy box banged together out of two by fours and drywall, but larger, more dramatic-looking, and full of expensive fittings. -- Paul Graham -- 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
