On 06/19/2015 03:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_alua.c
>> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_alua.c
>> @@ -1880,12 +1880,19 @@ static void core_alua_put_tg_pt_gp_from_name(
>> static void __target_attach_tg_pt_gp(struct se_lun *lun,
>> struct t10_alua_tg_pt_gp *tg_pt_gp)
>> {
>> + struct se_dev_entry *se_deve;
>> +
>> assert_spin_locked(&lun->lun_tg_pt_gp_lock);
>>
>> spin_lock(&tg_pt_gp->tg_pt_gp_lock);
>> lun->lun_tg_pt_gp = tg_pt_gp;
>> list_add_tail(&lun->lun_tg_pt_gp_link, &tg_pt_gp->tg_pt_gp_lun_list);
>> tg_pt_gp->tg_pt_gp_members++;
>> + spin_lock_bh(&lun->lun_deve_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(se_deve, &lun->lun_deve_list, lun_link)
>> + core_scsi3_ua_allocate(se_deve, 0x3f,
>> + ASCQ_3FH_INQUIRY_DATA_HAS_CHANGED);
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&lun->lun_deve_lock);
>> spin_unlock(&tg_pt_gp->tg_pt_gp_lock);
>
> Taking a _bh lock inside a regular spinlock is completely broken.
>
> Fortunately I don't think lun_deve_lock needs to disable bottom halves,
> but this needs to be fixed first.
>
This harks back to my previous mail:
Under which circumstances will there be more than one se_dev_entry
structures in lun_deve_list?
Isn't there a 1:1 relationship?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
