On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 10:28 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > That is problematic. The ABORT_TMF does need IO for which we need > > to wait. And if we just submit and pretend the abort worked, the tag > > will be reused. > > Perhaps we could drop the spinlock. I think it is time to talk to > > the SCSI people. > > The abort handler doesn't have to wait for the command to terminate. > It merely has to initiate an abort and return. The SCSI layer gets > notified via the usual mechanism when the command eventually finishes, > whether it was successful or not. This is stange. I don't see how we can guarantee a command completion if eh_abort_handler() has sent the TMF. It was my understanding that returning from eh_abort_handler() means that a tag is considered free again and will be reused. Could you clarify? Regards Oliver -- 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
