Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> - list_for_each_entry(starget, &shost->__targets, siblings) {
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(starget, tmp, &shost->__targets, siblings) {
>> if (starget->state == STARGET_DEL)
>> continue;
>> if (starget->dev.parent == dev || &starget->dev == dev) {
>> /* assuming new targets arrive at the end */
>
> Now that the last variable is gone this comments isn't needed.
Yep, you're right. I'll remove it.
>
>> kref_get(&starget->reap_ref);
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, flags);
>> - if (last)
>> - scsi_target_reap(last);
>> - last = starget;
>> +
>> __scsi_remove_target(starget);
>> + list_move_tail(&starget->siblings, &reap_list);
>> spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
>> }
>
> What makes the list_move save after dropping host_lock? I think this
> needs to be changed to not drop the host_lock and change
> __scsi_remove_target to expect host_lock held to be safe.
Having the list_move() outside of the host_lock was purely by
accident. Interestingly the stressing didn't mind it. But yes you're
right, __scsi_remove_target() should be made host_lock() save for being
called under the host_lock.
Regarding the list move, does it look OK for you (i.e. do we still need
it after reworking __scsi_remove_target())? IMHO yes, but I only have
half a year of experience in this area).
> --
> 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
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumshirn@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
--
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
