From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1764FC3DA79 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 15:57:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236566AbiLWP5o (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:57:44 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33930 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231345AbiLWP5f (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:57:35 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C7BF4AF27 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 07:57:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id DADCB68AA6; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:57:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:57:27 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Mike Christie Cc: Christoph Hellwig , john.g.garry@oracle.com, bvanassche@acm.org, mwilck@suse.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/15] scsi: virtio_scsi: Convert to scsi_execute_cmd Message-ID: <20221223155727.GA30763@lst.de> References: <20221214235001.57267-1-michael.christie@oracle.com> <20221214235001.57267-13-michael.christie@oracle.com> <20221215081540.GG3308@lst.de> <0771d185-107a-e3fa-aa61-9dbd1da36a61@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0771d185-107a-e3fa-aa61-9dbd1da36a61@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 03:40:48PM -0600, Mike Christie wrote: > It looks like a hack around scsi_scan_host not removing devices. > Going forward, it looks like we can remove the inquiry code by having > scsi_scan_host be able to remove devices that are no longer returned. Yes, that's the place to do it. I can see arguments for and against that, but doing it from and LLDD (and including sd.h in the LLDD implementation!) just doesn't make sense. > I was thinking to handle the DID_BAD_TARGET use case above and this type > of issue: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/CA+PODjqrRzyJnOKoabMOV4EPByNnL1LgTi+QAKENP3NwUq5YCw@mail.gmail.com/ > > maybe we want to have a driver level BLIST like: Maybe instead of a blist we just need better way to communicate this rather than abusing DID_BAD_TARGET? > One other question, can I do this work after the patchset in this email, the > scsi_cmnd retry patches and the actual PR ones? I keep going off track on these > side adventures. Yes, please. I think we need to finish this series first.