From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: dev_loss_tmo behavior question Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:07:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4C5055AA.7080703@emulex.com> References: <4C4F4B94.1070009@cs.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from exht1.emulex.com ([138.239.113.183]:46938 "EHLO exht1.ad.emulex.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752075Ab0G1QHb (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:07:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C4F4B94.1070009@cs.wisc.edu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Christie Cc: "brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , Andrew Vasquez , SCSI Mailing List , "Desai, Kashyap" , Giridhar Malavali , Christof Schmitt , "Love, Robert W" , Jing Huang , "Smart, James" Mike Christie wrote: > Hi FC driver developers, > > I am trying to figure out what is the correct behavior when setting > dev_loss_tmo. > > With lpfc, qla2xx, and ibmfc if I set dev_loss_tmo using > /sys/class/fc_remote_port/rport-xx/dev_loss_tmo, and then we add devices > the slave_configure functions for these drivers reset the dev_loss_tmo > to a driver value. > > The addition of devs could be from something like a user rescan, or from > a scan started by a remote port addition. Looking at lpfc - this is a totally insane thing to do, and definitely a bug. Addition or removal of sdevs should not change a rport setting. > > With fcoe, fnic, mptfc, bfa and zfcp the dev_loss_tmo value set from > sysfs will not be reset by a driver value on rescans. > > Which drivers should be changed? lpfc, qla2xx, and ibmfc. -- james s