From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
James Bottomley <james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] scsi_dh_rdac: switch to scsi_execute_req_flags()
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:47:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161101144744.GB17827@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1477936770-106687-2-git-send-email-hare@suse.de>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 06:59:28PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Switch to using scsi_execute_req_flags() instead of using the
> block primitives.
__scsi_execute adds RQF_QUIET and RQF_PREEMPT to the request flags, which
would be a change in behavior. A little analysis on why that's safe or
even desireable would be nice. (This also applies to the other two patches
I think).
>
> static void release_controller(struct kref *kref)
> static int get_lun_info(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct rdac_dh_data *h,
> char *array_name, u8 *array_id)
> {
> + int err = SCSI_DH_IO, i;
> struct c8_inquiry *inqp;
>
> + if (!scsi_get_vpd_page(sdev, 0xC8, (unsigned char *)h,
> + sizeof(struct c8_inquiry))) {
This looks completely bogus to me - h is a struct rdac_dh_data pointer,
which is an in-kernel data structure that scsi_get_vpd_page would
scramble over.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-01 14:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-31 17:59 [PATCH 0/3] scsi_dh: switch to scsi_execute_req_flags() Hannes Reinecke
2016-10-31 17:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] scsi_dh_rdac: " Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-01 14:47 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2016-11-01 19:22 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-10-31 17:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] scsi_dh_emc: " Hannes Reinecke
2016-10-31 17:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] scsi_dh_hp_sw: " Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-01 14:41 ` [PATCH 0/3] scsi_dh: " Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-01 17:00 ` Hannes Reinecke
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-01 21:49 [PATCHv2 " Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-01 21:49 ` [PATCH 1/3] scsi_dh_rdac: " Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-02 15:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-03 13:07 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-02 15:44 ` Ewan D. Milne
2016-11-02 21:27 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-03 16:11 ` Ewan D. Milne
2016-11-03 22:06 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-03 13:20 [PATCHv3 0/3] scsi_dh: " Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-03 13:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] scsi_dh_rdac: " Hannes Reinecke
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=20161101144744.GB17827@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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.