https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111441 --- Comment #13 from nab <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 10:55 -0600, Mike Christie wrote: > On 01/30/2016 01:38 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 17:32 -0600, Mike Christie wrote: > >> On 01/29/2016 04:21 PM, Serguei Bezverkhi (sbezverk) wrote: > >>> HI Mike, > >>> > >>> I tried your patch and it is has eliminated first traceback but I still do not see my remote targets. > >>> > >> > >> That is sort of expected. Your target is not setup for ALUA properly. It > >> says it supports ALUA, but when scsi_dh_alua asks about the ports it is > >> reporting there are none. Ccing the people that made the patch that > >> added the issue and own the code. > >> > >> Hey Christoph and Hannes, > >> > >> The dh/alua changes that added this: > >> > >> error = scsi_dh_add_device(sdev); > >> if (error) { > >> sdev_printk(KERN_INFO, sdev, > >> "failed to add device handler: %d\n", > >> error); > >> return error; > >> } > >> > >> to scsi_sysfs_add_sdev are adding a regression. > >> > >> 1. If that fails, then we forget to do device_del before doing the > >> return. My patch in this thread added that back, so we do not see the > >> sysfs oopses anymore. But..... > >> > >> 2. It looks like in older kernels, we would allow misconfigured targets > >> like this one to still setup devices. Do we want that old behavior back? > >> Should we just ignore the return value from scsi_dh_add_device above? > >> Note that in this case, it is LIO so it can be easily fixed on the > >> target side by just setting it up properly. I do not think other targets > >> would hit this type of issue. > >> > > > > Btw, what does misconfigured mean here wrt target ALUA..? > > [ 25.833195] sd 6:0:0:4: alua: supports implicit and explicit TPGS > [ 25.833360] sd 6:0:0:4: alua: No target port descriptors found > [ 25.833363] sd 6:0:0:4: alua: Attach failed (-22) > [ 25.833365] sd 6:0:0:4: failed to add device handler: -22 > Strange, this hasn't changed in forever on the target side.. > He has LIO configured to report it supports implicit/explicit ALUA, but > the ports do not seem to be configured. > > For the LIO config side, are his LUNs just not in a the default_lu_gp or > any other group? So every non-PSCSI backend device becomes part of default_lu_gp + default_tg_pt_gp and automatically shows up in EVPD=0x83, without user needing to do any additional configuration. Here's what the output looks like: root@haakon3:/usr/src/target-pending.git# sg_inq -Hi /dev/sdb VPD INQUIRY: Device Identification page <SNIP> Designation descriptor number 3, descriptor length: 8 transport: Serial Attached SCSI Protocol (SPL-2) designator_type: Relative target port, code_set: Binary associated with the target port designator header(hex): 61 94 00 04 designator: 00 00 00 00 02 .... Designation descriptor number 4, descriptor length: 8 transport: Serial Attached SCSI Protocol (SPL-2) designator_type: Target port group, code_set: Binary associated with the target port designator header(hex): 61 95 00 04 designator: 00 00 00 00 00 .... Designation descriptor number 5, descriptor length: 8 designator_type: Logical unit group, code_set: Binary associated with the addressed logical unit designator header(hex): 01 06 00 04 designator: 00 00 00 00 00 .... <SNIP> So AFAICT, the relative target port, target port group, and logical unit group being returned from target on v4.5-rc1 code looks correct. Serguei, can you confirm with 'sg_inq -Hi /dev/sdX' output on your side with the v3.10 based target..? AFAICT the parsing in scsi_vpd_tpg_id() from commit a8aa3978 looks correct too. Hannes, any ideas..? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. -- 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
