On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:15:19AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > At least to me patches 1/4..3/4 look like nice cleanup patches. Regarding > patch 4/4: I'm not sure yet what's the best way for addressing potentially > concurrent SG_SCSI_RESET ioctl calls. As far as I know many SCSI LLDs have > been implemented assuming that eh_*_reset_handler() calls are serialized per > SCSI host. Does this mean that a mutex has to be added to avoid that an > eh_*_reset_handler() call can be triggered via an ioctl while at the same > time the SCSI error handler thread is invoking one of the > eh_*_reset_handler() callback functions due to SCSI error handling ? Both the existing code and my new code still serialize eh_*_reset_handler callers using the crude tmf_in_progress flag. Using a proper lock for it would seem preferable to me, as would be bouncing the work for SG_SCSI_RESET to the EH thread. -- 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
