Re: [RFC 7/8] IB/srp: stop sharing the host lock with SCSI

[Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh-C4P08NqkoRlBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>]

On 12/27/2010 08:01 PM, David Dillow wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 19:56 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> On 12/27/2010 07:49 PM, David Dillow wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 16:31 -0500, David Dillow wrote:
>>>> We don't need protection against the SCSI stack, so use our own lock to
>>>> allow parallel progress on separate CPUs.
>>>
>>>> @@ -1126,7 +1125,7 @@ static int srp_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct scsi_cmnd *scmnd)
>>>>  		return 0;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>> -	spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
>>>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&target->lock, flags);
>>>>  	/* This goes away once the scsi_eh routines stop testing it. */
>>>>  	scsi_cmd_get_serial(shost, scmnd);
>>>>  	iu = __srp_get_tx_iu(target, SRP_IU_CMD);
>>>
>>> This one may be a bit problematic -- I need to look at the required
>>> locking to avoid a race with the serial number. Of course, there's an
>>> easy fix -- if this patch lands after the patches to remove the serial
>>> number check from the error handler, then there's no reason to get a
>>> serial number in the initiator.
>>>
>>
>> $ git log --oneline -1 linus/master -- drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c
>> 459dbf7 [SCSI] Eliminate error handler overload of the SCSI serial number
> 
> Oh goodie, I hadn't followed up to see if it was in one of James's later
> pulls. Thanks for the heads up -- I'll dump scsi_cmd_get_serial() in
> this patch then.
> 

Are these base on James's trees? Or are you maintaining these scsi bits yourself?

Also CC: Nicholas A. Bellinger just in case he has a matching patch in
his luckless tree.

Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html