From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] scsi_dh: Implement common device table handling
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:14:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080523111456.GD380@pentland.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1211508493.21974.502.camel@chandra-ubuntu>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 4467 bytes --]
Hi Chandra,
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 07:08:13PM -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> One of my comments (regarding creating a cache of vendor-product-scsi_dh
> trio of already found device type). I will code it and send it.
>
> Looks good except for the minor comments as noted below.
>
> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 16:05 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > + spin_lock(&list_lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry(tmp, &scsi_dh_list, list) {
> > + for(i = 0; tmp->devlist[i].vendor; i++) {
> > + if (!strncmp(sdev->vendor, tmp->devlist[i].vendor,
> > + strlen(tmp->devlist[i].vendor)) &&
> > + !strncmp(sdev->model, tmp->devlist[i].model,
> > + strlen(tmp->devlist[i].model))) {
> > + devinfo = tmp;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + if (devinfo)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&list_lock);
>
> The above block of code can be made into a function (as there are more
> than one usage).
>
Ok, will do.
> > +
> > + if (!devinfo)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + if (action == BUS_NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE) {
> > + err = scsi_dh_handler_attach(sdev, devinfo);
> > + } else if (action == BUS_NOTIFY_DEL_DEVICE) {
> > + if (sdev->scsi_dh_data == NULL)
> > + goto out;
>
> Check above is done in scsi_dh_handler_detach. Do you think it is needed
> here ?
>
No, not really. Just forgot to take it out.
[ .. ]
> > +{
> > + struct scsi_device_handler *scsi_dh = data;
> > + struct scsi_device *sdev;
> > +
> > + if (!scsi_is_sdev_device(dev))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + sdev = to_scsi_device(dev);
> > +
> > + if (!sdev->scsi_dh_data || sdev->scsi_dh_data->scsi_dh != scsi_dh)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + scsi_dh_handler_detach(sdev);
> >
> > - scsi_dh->nb.notifier_call(&scsi_dh->nb, BUS_NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE, dev);
> > return 0;
> > }
> notifier_add above does get_device() and put_device(). We don't need it
> in notifier_remove ?
Oops. Yes, we do.
[ .. ]
> > - strlen(clariion_dev_list[i].model))) {
> > - found = 1;
> > - break;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - if (!found)
> > - goto out;
> > -
> > - scsi_dh_data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct scsi_device_handler *)
> > - + sizeof(*h) , GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!scsi_dh_data) {
> > - sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev, "Attach failed %s.\n",
> > - CLARIION_NAME);
> > - goto out;
> > - }
> > + if (sdev->scsi_dh_data)
> > + return -EBUSY;
>
> This check has already been done at scsi_dh level. Do we still need it
> here ?
>
No, we don't.
> >
> > - sdev_printk(KERN_NOTICE, sdev, "Dettached %s.\n",
> > - CLARIION_NAME);
> > +static void clariion_bus_detach(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> > +{
> > + struct scsi_dh_data *scsi_dh_data;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > - kfree(scsi_dh_data);
> > - module_put(THIS_MODULE);
> > - }
> > + if (sdev->scsi_dh_data == NULL ||
> > + sdev->scsi_dh_data->scsi_dh != &clariion_dh)
> > + return;
>
> first check is already done in scsi_dh level.
>
Fixed.
[ .. ]
> > +static void hp_sw_bus_detach( struct scsi_device *sdev )
> > +{
> > + struct scsi_dh_data *scsi_dh_data;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock, flags);
> > - scsi_dh_data = sdev->scsi_dh_data;
> > - sdev->scsi_dh_data = NULL;
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock, flags);
> > - module_put(THIS_MODULE);
> > + if (sdev->scsi_dh_data == NULL ||
> > + sdev->scsi_dh_data->scsi_dh != &hp_sw_dh)
> > + return;
> first check is already done in scsi_dh level.
>
Fixed.
Seeing that this will become quite a lengthy process I've put up my scsi_dh
patchset at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/hare/scsi-ml.git
branch: scsi_dh
We should be using this as a starting point and continue this discussion
(and the patches) offline.
Once we've agreed on a status we should be sending the patchset to the
mailinglist. Otherwise we'll be clogging up bandwidth unnecessarily.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-23 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-20 14:05 [PATCH 1/7] scsi_dh: Implement common device table handling Hannes Reinecke
2008-05-23 2:08 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2008-05-23 11:14 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080523111456.GD380@pentland.suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.