From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Christie Subject: Re: [Patch] plug async scan race at 1st node scan Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:44:29 -0600 Message-ID: <47C9419D.1040402@cs.wisc.edu> References: <1187615436.3897.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070820134918.GC30019@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sabe.cs.wisc.edu ([128.105.6.20]:46092 "EHLO sabe.cs.wisc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750708AbYCALq1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Mar 2008 06:46:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070820134918.GC30019@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: James Smart , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, tore@linpro.no Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:10:35AM -0400, James Smart wrote: >> In testing 2.6.23-rc3, there is a small window where the async-per-target >> scan of the transport can beat the call from the LLDD to scsi_scan_host(). > > I'd assumed that events wouldn't come in until ->scan_start was called. > I see lpfc doesn't have one; is it possible to restructure it to have one? > > (In any case, good job tracking this down; it was really annoying me.) > > Possibly we should be less forgiving, and require drivers to have a > scan_start, otherwise they can't avoid this race. > I am hitting this problem with qla4xxx (added async scanning to 2.6.25-rc). Was the final decision that we have to add a scan_start? I did not see scan_start be made mandatory and I did not see James's patch go in.